From Law wiki, the wiki for law research

C-197/86; [1988] ECR 3205. The applicant was a French national who had worked for nine months in Scotland before taking up a University place in England. He was refused a maintenance grant, and argued that, as he was resident in the UK for the purposes of work, he was entitled to one.

The European Court of Justice held that the applicant was, indeed, a 'worker' within the terms of the ECTreaty. However, it went on the rule that, since him employment in Scotland was intended only to be preparatory to his course of study, his employment was only ancilliary to his residence in the UK, not the purpose of it. Consequently, he was not entitled to a maintenance grant as a 'real' worker would be.

This case raises some difficult issues concerningFree Movement Of Workers. If, as cases such as Lawrie blum (1985) make clear, the purpose of employment is not relevant to whether someone entitled to rights of free movement, why should the purpose of employment make any difference to whether a person is entitled to a student grant? And if the EC Treaty does not recognize a status mid-way between than of worker and non-worker, what is the legal basis for the ECJ's creating such a status in cases like Brown?

The decision in Brown seems to be based not on logic, but on the need to form a compromise with the member states concerning access to education. Many member states have been concerned that non-nationals will be able to exercise their rights ofFree Movement Of Workers and, once established as workers avail themselves of university education at the public expense. The ECJ in Brown could hardly rule that Mr Brown was not a worker, given it's previous pronouncements on the matter. What it could do, and did, was to grant him the formal status of worker, but qualify this status with certain restrictions. [[Category:UK