|
Thu 07-Jan-10 02:19 PM by Martin Williams
I think that such a person should be entitled.
However, Judge Rowland held the contrary in SSWP v RK <2009> UKUT 209 AAC (ie that Art 7(3)(b) to (d) Dir 2004/38 did not apply to the self employed).
In doing so Judge Rowland failed to have regard to the other EU language versions of the Directive which plainly do state that the self employed retain status in this way.
The problem is that the English text refers in Art 7(3)(d) (for example) only to "workers" retaining their status. Rowland found this significant and based his decision on this.
However (for example) the French text makes plain this is not intended:
1. Article 7(3)(d) of the Directive, provides for the retention of self-employed status in the following situation:
3. For the purposes of paragraph 1(a), a Union citizen who is no longer a worker or self-employed person shall retain the status of worker or self-employed person in the following circumstances:
(d) he/she embarks on vocational training. Unless he/she is involuntarily unemployed, the retention of the status of worker shall require the training to be related to the previous employment
2. The fact that Article 7(3)(d) refers to retaining the status of “worker” and not that of “self employed” does not mean that Article 7(3)(d) can only apply to workers and not the self-employed. Rather, it is a curious feature of the drafting of the provision in the English language. In French, the text of the relevant parts of Article 7 is as follows:
Article 7
Droit de séjour de plus de trois mois
1. Tout citoyen de l'Union a le droit de séjourner sur le territoire d'un autre État membre pour une durée de plus de trois mois:
a) s'il est un travailleur salarié ou non salarié dans l'État membre d'accueil, ou
<….>
3. Aux fins du paragraphe 1, point a), le citoyen de l'Union qui n'exerce plus d'activité salariée ou non salariée conserve la qualité de travailleur salarié ou de non salarié dans les cas suivants:
<…..>
d) s'il entreprend une formation professionnelle. À moins que l'intéressé ne se trouve en situation de chômage involontaire, le maintien de la qualité de travailleur suppose qu'il existe une relation entre la formation et l'activité professionnelle antérieure.
3. It is clear that in French the term “travailleur salarié ou non salarié” (literally “worker salaried or non salaried”) refers to employed/self-employed workers. Thus the use of the unqualified term “travailleur” in Article 7(3)(d) indicates plainly that this applies to both “travailluer salarié” (ie workers as we would understand the term) and “travailleur non salarié” (ie the self employed
The ECJ (C-347/08 Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse at para 26) have held that it is an error not to have regard to multiple language versions of a disputed provision and Rowland appears (a) not to have done so and (b) not to have been referred to the ECJ decision saying he should.
In these circumstances, it could be argued that his decision is per incuriam the ECJ judgment and thus not binding on First-tier Tribunal.
It is hoped the point will shortly be academic as I understand a JR case called Tilianu will raise these issues and is to be heard later this month.
|
