Lawrie-Blum v Land Baden-Württemberg

Lawrie-Blum v Land Baden-Württemberg
CourtEuropean Court of Justice
Decided3 July 1986
Citation(s)Case 66/85, [1986] ECR 2121
Keywords
Free movement of workers
Contract of employment

Lawrie-Blum v Land Baden-Württemberg (1986) Case 66/85 was a European Union law case about the free movement of workers within the territory of the European Union. The decision of the European Court of Justice concerned the scope of protection for people with regard to employment rights. The Court took the view that an employment contract requires someone to work under the direction of another.

Facts

Deborah Lawrie-Blum was a British national who had passed the first stage of teacher training whilst studying at the University of Freiburg. She was refused entry to the second stage of training by the State of Baden-Württemberg because teachers in Germany are regarded as civil servants. Federal law stated that such posts could only be held by German citizens. Lawrie-Blum took the case to the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgericht) in Freiburg on the grounds that she was a worker and therefore entitled to obtain employment in any EEC state.

The Administrative Court Freiburg and subsequently the Higher Administrative Court for the State of Baden-Württemberg (Verwaltungsgerichtshof) held that a trainee teacher was not a ‘worker’ within the terms of Article 48(1) of the Treaty of the European Economic Community, and even if it was, a public servant exemption in Article 48(4) applied. Lawrie-Blum then appealed to the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court) which requested a ruling from the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

Judgment

The ECJ stated that the concept of ‘worker’ in Article 48 should be interpreted broadly as (I) a person (II) performing services (III) under the direction of another (IV) for remuneration, and that included a trainee teacher. Article 48(4) is to be construed narrowly, and only to safeguard a state’s interests,

17. The essential feature of an employment relationship, however, is that for a certain period of time a person performs services for and under the direction of another person in return for which he receives remuneration.

See also

  • v
  • t
  • e
Workplace protection cases
Employment Rights Act 1996 s 230
Jivraj v Hashwani [2011] UKSC 40
Ready Mixed Concrete Ltd v SS for Pensions [1968] 2 QB 497
Market Invest Ltd v Minister for Social Security [1969] 2 QB 173
Nethermere (St Neots) Ltd v Gardiner [1984] ICR 612
Hall v Lorimer [1993] EWCA Civ 25
Lane v Shire Roofing Co (Oxford) Ltd [1995] EWCA Civ 37
McMeechan v SS for Employment [1996] EWCA Civ 1166
Dacas v Brook Street Bureau (UK) Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 217
Muscat v Cable & Wireless Plc [2006] EWCA Civ 220
James v Greenwich LBC [2008] EWCA Civ 35
  • v
  • t
  • e
Free movement of workers
TFEU arts 45-48
Lawrie-Blum v Land Baden-Württemberg (1986) Case 66/85
Steymann v Staatssecretaris van Justitie (1988) Case 196/87
Angonese v Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano SpA (2000) C-281/98
Weigel v Finanzlandesdirektion für Vorarlberg (2004) C-387/01
Gravier v City of Liege (1985) Case 293/83
Vander Elst v Office des Migrations Internationales (1994) C-43/93

Notes