Sample Solution

As Bjarne is too young to have the knowledge and understanding to best enforce his rights, Charlotte will be required to do it on his behalf. The best way to enforce his rights are on the grounds of the State breaching his Article 18 rights and Regulation 492/2011 rights . The requirement for Bjarne to have resided in the UK for 5 years constitutes to discrimination. The requirement is unlawful and is set in the Treaty Provision in Article 18 , which includes direct discrimination of nationality is prohibited. This is legally binding which means it constitutes to direct effect. The test which was set out in the case of Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen needs to be satisfied in order for Charlotte to use vertical direct effect. The requirements include: the EU provision needs to be sufficiently clear and precise, which Article 18 TFEU is. The provision must be unconditional, which it is only to EU citizens which Bjarne is, and it must leave no room for the exercise of discretion in its implementation by an institution or national authority which Article 18 doesn’t. As the provision passes these requirements, Charlotte will be able to enforce this provision and exercise Bjarne’s rights before the courts. The ESC can be considered and emanation of the state which is established in the Foster test: the body is considered to be providing a public service as it is a public school for special needs children. It is subject to state authority as is subject to the council. It can be considered to have special powers as it set a residency requirement and even turned away Bjarne based on it.

Maria is Luis’ daughter from a previous marriage and is 18 years old. She is Columbian and therefore not an EU citizen. She comes in the definition of a worker under the Directive 2004/38 Article 1 (c) “a child under 21 years of age or such child of a spouse of a European Union citizen and;” (d) “a dependent direct relative in the ascending or descending line or any such relative of a spouse of a citizen of the European Union.” Maria specifically falls under the age of 21 of a spouse of an EU citizen and she is dependant on the descending line of her father who is the spouse of an EU citizen. Maria’s rights are considerably low as she is dependant on her father who is also dependant on Charlotte. The right in Article 24 (1) of the Directive 2004/38 to “reside on the basis of this directive in the host Member State and enjoy equal treatment of the nationals of that Member State” is extended to family members who have the right of residence which Maria does based on her dependency on Luis and Charlotte. This means it is within her rights to receive a maintenance grant as other British nationals in her position would. Article 24 (2) of the directive provides a derogation from the principle of equal treatment in regards to students. It states that Member States are not obliged to grant maintenance loans for studies unless the person is classed as worker or a person of such a persons family. She is defined as Charlottes family member who is an EU citizen and a worker in London so according to this Article of the directive it is within her rights to be eligible for the maintenance grant. In the case of Gravier additional fees for non-nationals fell within the scope of Article 18 on t