Ms. Levin was a British national, married to a South African national, who moved to the Netherlands. Ms. Levin had undertaken a small amount of part-time work and she and her husband supplemented their earned income with investment income. The earned income was far below what could be regarded as a necessary income according to Dutch Law. The question was whether she could be regarded as a worker for the purposes of EU law. The European Court of Justice stated that it does not matter if the income is lower than the minimum required for subsistence. What is important is that the work activity be effective and genuine, not marginal and ancillary.
Prior to the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, the European Communities treaties provided guarantees for the free movement of economically active persons, but not, generally, for others. The interpretation of Treaty provisions on free movement has been very important since they considered free movement not as having a narrow economic purpose, but rather a wider social and economic purpose. The Court found that the "freedom to take up employment was important, not just as a means towards the creation of a single market for the benefit of the Member State economies, but as a right for the worker to raise her or his standard of living".
To sum-up, the three main endings of this case were :
1 . "The concept of "worker" and "activity as an employed person" define the field of application of one of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty and, as such, may not be interpreted restrictively."
2 . "The provisions of community law relating to freedom of movement for workers also cover a national of a member state who pursues, within the territory of another member state, an activity as an employed person which yields an income lower thant that which, in the latter state, is considered as the minimum required for subsistence, whether that person supplements the income from his activity as an employed person with other income so as to arrive at that minimum or is satisfied with means of support lower than the said minimum, provided that he pursues an activity as an employed person which is effective and genuine."
3. "The motives which may have prompted a worker of a member state to seek employment in another member state are of no account as regards his right to enter and reside in the territory of the latter state provided that he there pursues or wishes to pursue an effective and genuine activity."
Sources :
Read the full case here.
