Setting out the boundaries of jobseekers’ residence status and beyond: Case C-710/19 G.M.A. v État belge
| Author | Rufat Babayev |
| DOI | 10.1177/1023263X221078127 |
| Published date | 01 April 2022 |
| Date | 01 April 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Case Note |
Setting out the boundaries
of jobseekers’residence status
and beyond: Case C-710/19
G.M.A. v État belge
Rufat Babayev* *
Abstract
This contributionexamines the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered in
Case C-710/19 G.M.A. v État belge. It is argued that this ruling brings some degree of certainty and
transparency to the nature and extent of residence rights guaranteed to jobseekers, considering the
fragmented and dispersed outline of theirstatus within the framework of Directive 2004/38. G.M.A.v
État belge can also be viewed as a possible catalyst for recasting Directive 2004/38 to provide a clear
and systematic layout of jobseekers’residence status in host Member States. However, it is ques-
tionable whether this would, in fact, provide an enhanced protection of jobseekers, since this ruling
to suggests that the Court’s methodology to ascertain the residence rights of Union citizens varies
based on the explicit wording of Union secondary law.
Keywords
Article 45 TFEU, Directive 2004/38, jobseeker, residence status, genuine chance of being engaged
1. Introduction
In December 2020, the First Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union issued a judg-
ment in Case C-710/19 G.M.A. v État belge concerning the residence status of Union citizens
moving to other Member States in the capacity of a jobseeker. As is well known, Union citizens
enjoy, on the basis of Article 45 TFEU, the right to seek employment throughout the Union.
1
*
Lecturer in Law, Leicester University, Leicester, UK
Corresponding author:
Dr Rufat Babayev, Leicester Law School, Leicester University, University Road, Leicester LE1 7RH, UK.
E-mail: rufat.babayev@leicester.ac.uk
1. Case 48-75 Royer, EU:C:1976:57, para. 31.
Case Note
Maastricht Journal of European and
Comparative Law
2022, Vol. 29(2) 286–297
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1023263X221078127
maastrichtjournal.sagepub.com
To continue reading
Request your trial