This is a right of individuals to invoke before National Courts apply the European Union Law in their legal relations with public administrations or individuals, regardless of whether there are texts in national law.
Freedom of movement of workers and abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member StatesArticle 48 of the EEC Treaty (now Article 45 of the TFEU) sets that Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Union and entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and jobs, but subjected to limitations justified on the grounds of public policy, public security or public health.
For it is part, Article 3 of Directive no 64/221 provides that “Measures taken on grounds of public policy or of public security shall be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned”.
In the present case, it was not required for the Member State to demonstrate that the personal conduct of the person, whose right to free movement is being denied, was socially harmful. Therefore the Member States can limit this right following their own interests.
This controversial judgment helped later to require the State, which limits that right, to prove that that person’s activities are socially harmful.
In the main proceedings of this judgement, Yvonne Van Duyn, of Dutch nationality, brought an action against the Home Office for denied her enter the united kingdom to take up employment as a secretary with the “Church of Scientology” by considering that the activities are socially harmful.
The Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice of England asked, In a reference for a preliminary ruling, the CJEU to interpret Article 48 of the EEC Treaty and Article 3(1) of Directive no 64/221 and to say whether this ECC Treaty Article and
Directive no 64/221 are directly applicable to confer on individuals rights enforceable by them in the Courts of a Member State.
The Court also had to rule if a Member State, in fulfilling its obligation to substantiate the measure adopted on the grounds of public policy, may refuse the right to move freely taking into account the matter of personal conduct of the individual concerned, when there are no restrictions for the nationals of the Member State who wish to take similar employment with such a body or organization.
The Court decided that Article 48 of the EEC Treaty has a direct effect and that Article 3 (1) of Directive no 64/221 confers on individuals rights which are enforceable by them in the National Courts of a Member State who must protect. But claimed that England, based on that conditions, has the right to refuse the request of Freedom of movement because England claimed that Yvonne was associated with an organization, which activities were considered socially harmful even if they are not unlawful in that State. That prohibition did not apply to the nationals of England.
Although the Treaty ensures the principle of Freedom of movement for workers without any discrimination on the grounds of nationality, it admits limitations justified on public policy, public security or public health.
Consequently, the right to stay in a Member State for the purpose of employment may be refused by a national of another Member State.