Hi, need to submit a 2000 words essay on the topic Free Movement of Person.Download file to see previous pages... One is that Nic is a Bulgarian national. The other is that he has not been accepted to

Hi, need to submit a 2000 words essay on the topic Free Movement of Person.

One is that Nic is a Bulgarian national. The other is that he has not been accepted to any job in Germany at the time of his attempt at entry. There are two sets of laws applicable here, both relating to freedom of movement of persons within the European Union. One relates to the rights of workers, and corollary to that, on the issue of whether a job applicant such as Nic has the right to enter Germany and be treated as a worker under the law. The other has to do with whether citizenship in a country that is either a member of non-member of the EU grants certain rights of abode and entry into other member states of the EU (Bamford et al. 2012, pp. 6-39). First Article 45 of the TFEU states that “workers of the Member States” are free to move within the EU. The article, together with Article 18, reinforces the ban on discrimination based on nationality, and the former article specifically prohibits such discrimination as it relates to work for citizens of the EU. There are also other worker rights in the EU law that support Nic’s bid to enter Germany, among them the right against discrimination on job selection based on nationality, and the right to look for work in another EU country, as implied in the movement right provision in Article 45 of the TFEU. Meanwhile, while Article 45 is mum on the status of job seekers like Nic, the ECJ has made it clear that it is corollary to the stipulated rights of Article 45 for job seekers likewise to be afforded the rights guaranteed in Article 45. This is true for example in cases like R v. Immigration Appeal Tribunal, ex parte Antonissen (case C-292/89) [1991 ] ECR I-745, where the court ruled in favor of job seekers having equal freedom of movement rights as workers, in essence (Bamford et al. 2012, p. 13). This means that as a work seeker, Nic has the right to move within the EU (Bamford et al. 2012, pp. 6-15). Granted that a two-tier treatment system is in place in the EU, with states who were in the EU prior to the May 2004 inclusions being able to negate some of the laws on freedom of movement of persons, it was clear also that the two-tier system was to go by the beginning of 2012, and 2014 at the latest. Germany’s only safe ground here is that Bulgaria is within the group of states post 2004, and therefore Germany has the right to invoke restrictions to free movement of Bulgarians in Germany prior to 2014. The Germans though should have signified legally their intention with regard to restricting or lifting restrictions on movement of Bulgarian nationals within Germany by 2008. Moreover, the restriction post 2012 is not absolute, and Germany has to show that the movement of Nic, a physiotherapist, into Germany to seek work would disrupt the labor market in Germany. On the contrary, there is a physiotherapist shortage in that country (Bamford et al. 2012, pp. 6-24). The balance of the evidence and the legal provisions for and against the free movement of the Bulgarian physiotherapist Nic seems to favor Nic’s being allowed entry into Germany, and of Germany being on the wrong end of the EU law. Assuming this balance assessment is correct, EU law supersedes German law. ECJ case law provides many examples of the ECJ ruling on and deciding that national laws go against Article 45. Such is the case in Allue v.