Call us


Order this Paper





LENGTH: 1,700 words maximum

Sources: A bibliography must be given at the end and any other sources acknowledged.  References should be given at the bottom of each page as footnotes.

Plagiarism (ie. direct copying from books etc. or representing other writers’ work as your own) will result in a FAIL.  All sources used must be properly acknowledged.

Answer the following question:


Anton and Mirela, who are both Romanian nationals, have recently entered the United Kingdom, hoping to get a job. They were accompanied by their two children, Violeta aged 19, and Nicu, aged 16. Anton attempted to claim social security benefits for the family, but was told that, as non-UK nationals, they were not entitled to claim.


Anton eventually found work for two days per week as a cleaner, although his pay was below the minimum wage. He also found work with a business that produced fake electrical goods that were sold through the internet.

Mirela obtained work as a secretary in an office. However, she discovered that she was required to work longer hours than her UK colleagues, but did not receive any extra pay for this.

Anton and Mirela applied for lower tax benefits for their family. Such benefits could be claimed by UK nationals but Anton and Mirela were told they were not entitled to claim.

Nicu had finished school in Romania, and now in the UK he applied for a course to study business. He complained when he discovered that he was charged a higher fee than UK nationals who were on the course.

Violeta obtained a job as a shop assistant. After a few months she left this job to start a full time degree course at a UK university. She applied for financial support to undertake her studies, but this was refused. She was told that such support was only available to UK nationals.

Anton has recently been found guilty of selling fake electrical goods. He was sent to prison, with a recommendation that he should be deported at the end of his sentence.

Mirela was sacked from her office job when the employer discovered she was also working as a prostitute. Nicu has been found guilty of possessing illegal drugs and received a suspended prison sentence. Violeta joined an organisation called the Freedom Church, which, although not illegal, is being watched by the authorities.

The UK authorities have now decided the whole family is undesirable and should be deported immediately.

Critically discuss and advise Anton, Mirela, Nicu, and Violeta how EU Law relating to the free movement of persons (Art 45 TFEU) can be argued to the above events.




1 Steiner & Woods, “EU Law”, 12th Edition, 2014, chapters (check contents).

2 Craig & De Burca,”EC Law: Text,Cases,& Materials”,6th edition, 2015 (check content for relevant chapters).

3 Wyatt & Dashwood,”European Community Law”,chapters (check contents).

4 Weatherill,S,”Cases and Materials on EU Law”, 11th edition 2014, chapters (check contents)

5 A Kaczorowska, “European Union Law”, 1st Edition 2009, Cavendish

6 Green,Hartley and Usher,”The Legal Foundations of the Single

European Market”.

7 Ward “A Critical Introduction to European Law”,3rd Edition,2009,Cambridge.



Please note: The following ELR and CMLR journal articles can be accessed from Infolinx. Select the E-journal option and type ”European Law Review” or “Common Market Law Review”.

Journal articles are also available in paper format in the library (Regent Campus Library, Little Tichfield Street).


1 Union citizenship as probationary citizenship: Onuekwere

(Common Market Law Review 52: 531–546, 2015).


2 Daniel Thym, “The Elusive LIimits of Solidarity: Residence rights of and Social

Benefits for Economically Inactive Union Citizens”

(Common Market Law Review 52: 17–50, 2015).


3 Daniel Thym, “When Union citizens turn into illegal migrants: the Dano case”

(European Law Review 2015, 40(2), 249-2620

4 Verschueren, H,  Preventing “Benefit tourism” in the EU:A Narrow or Broad Interpretation of the possibilities offered by the ECJ in DANO?

(Common Market Law Review 52: 363–390, 2015).


5 Who funds the mobile student? Shedding some light on the normative

assumptions underlying EU free movement law: Commission v. Netherlands

Case C-542/09, European Commission v. Kingdom of the Netherlands,

Judgment of the Court of Justice (Second Chamber) of 14 June 2012, nyr.

(Common Market Law Review 50: 203–216, 2013).         

6 Skovgaard-Petersen H, “There and back again: portability of student loans, grants and fee support in a free movement perspective”

(European.Law Review 2013, 38(6), 783-804)

7 Reynolds S, “Exploring the “intrinsic connection” between free movement and the genuine enjoyment test: reflections on EU citizenship after Iida”

(European Law Review, 2013, 38(3), 376-392)

8 O’Brien c, Case C-310/08 London Borough of Harrow v. Nimco Hassan Ibrahim and Secretary of State for the Home Department, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 23 February 2010, and

Case C-480/08 Maria Teixeira v. London Borough of Lambeth and Secretary

of State for the Home Department, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of

23 February 2010

(Common Market Law Review 48 203–225, 2011)

9 Currie S, “Accelerated justice or a step too far? Residence rights of non-EU family members and the court’s ruling in Metock”

(European Law Review 2009, 34(2), 310-326)

10 Costello C, “Metock: Free Movement and Normal Family Life in the Union”

(Common Market Law Review 46: 587-662, 2009)

11 O’Leary S, “Equal treatment and EU citizens: A new chapter on cross-border educational mobility and access to student financial assistance”

(European Law Review 2009, 34(4), 612-627)

Order this Paper

Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Comments are closed.

Powered by WordPress | Designed by: Premium WordPress Themes | Thanks to Themes Gallery, Bromoney and Wordpress Themes