Select one of the following coursework titles: Essay 1 Analyse the way in which the Court of Justice of the European Union has interpreted the protection of residence rights for non-EU nationals...

Free movement of workers is a right as well as freedom enjoyed by EU citizens which includes certain rights including right to move, reside, entry and to work in another Member State. There are restrictions applicable for public service. The authority serving for the free movement of workers is the European Labor Authority.
Freedom of movement is provided to workers under Article 45 of TFEU and is considered as fundamental right providing movement of goods, capital and services in the European market. It abolishes discrimination on the grounds of nationality, remuneration or conditions of employment. It is evident to know that apart from these rights, an EU worker is also entitled to accept the job offer made and to move freely within a country or he might also stay for employment purposes.
In the case of Ruiz Zambrano, the Court examined that an individual had a right to work and reside in EU according to its law. If this permission is not granted to him, then the coming generation of his family would be facing issues in order to benefit from the genuine enjoyment of their rights as citizens of the European Union[footnoteRef:1]. This observation by Court justified their interference and cross-border logic was reconfirmed in the McCarthy case. Despite this approach, the result was not on an equal footing in these two cases. In McCarthy Case, the judges found that an adult woman, being a citizen, cannot rely on the EU law to help her husband, belonging to Jamaica, to obtain residence in UK, where there was lack of cross-border movement. She might have a citizenship of both Jamaica and UK, but that is not a sufficiently accepted by EU law. If she is not having a perfect and proper family life in the UK, then this is not something that the Court will observe or consider as a deprivation of employment affecting her individual rights as a citizen. [1: Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v. Office national de l’emploi, (2011) ]
As a result, the non-application of Directive 2004/38 does not state an implication that EU citizens cannot derive their rights from the status of their citizenship under the primary law. Thus, the Court examined Article 21 of TFEU to the case, even though it was not asked to do so. The ‘genuine enjoyment test’ was also applied in Rottmann Case and Ruiz Zambrano Case, to check whether the situation in McCarthy could be brought under EU law. Concluding this, the Court stated that the EU citizenship precludes national measures that deprive Union citizens of the genuine employment of the substance of rights conferred by their status or impeding the exercise of right to move freely within the territory of Member States[footnoteRef:2]. The CJEU observed that the situation of McCarthy Case did not meet any requirements. The failure of British...