worker within the European Union
The main treaty establishing the European Community is the European Community, which, as it suggests, is predominantly concerned with economic activity. ... This is confirmed by Article 1 of Regulation 1612/68 on freedom of movement of workers within the Community, which refers to the right to ‘take up an activity as an employed person’. Unfortunately, neither gives a definition of the worker, but the ECJ has decided that the words should be given their ordinary meaning and should not be interpreted restrictively. The Court of Justice has also emphasised on many occasions that the term ‘worker’ may not be defined by national laws but has a Community meaning. ... Bestuur der Bedrijfsvereniging voor Detailhandel en Ambachten [1964] ECR 177, a reference was made to the ECJ from the Dutch social security court for a ruling on the meaning of the term ‘wage-earner or assimilated worker’. In this case it was stated in the judgement that, ‘Articles 48 to 51 of the Treaty, by the very fact of establishing freedom of movement for ‘workers’, have given the Community scope to this term If the definition of this term was a matter for the competence of national law, it would therefore be possible for each Member State to modify the meaning of the concept of ‘migrant worker’ and to eliminate at will the protection afforded by the Treaty to certain categories of person’. The ECJ further went on to state that there was no indication from thre Treaty that the definition of the worker had been left to national legislation to define and that ‘on the contrary, the fact that Article 48(2) mentions certain elements of the concept of workers, such as employment and remuneration, shows that the Treaty attributes a Community meaning to that concept’. It was realised by the ECJ that if the concept of the worker was left to each Member state, then the purpose of Articles 48-51 would be ineffective and that the objectives of the Treaty(to set up a common market and to strengthen the economies of the member states and to bring them closer together) would be ‘frustrated’. It finally concluded that, ‘The Treaty did not intend to restrict protection only to the worker in employment but tend logically to protect also the worker who, having left his job, is capable of taking another.