EU Law Case Studies Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

EU Law Studies - Case Study ExampleAstrid, Klauss wife, had every right to throw for a job as an estate agent. The fact that Astrid was discriminated against because she did not pass a Spanish language test in Spain-although she had completed and passed a quasi(prenominal) test in Germany-is illegal because member EU states must treat other EU member citizens equally.4The fact that Klaus did not bear the aforesaid(prenominal) family pension entitlement as Spanish nationals who also worked as his company is a blatant form of discrimination against Klaus as a German national lifespan in Spain, again because EU members are supposed to receive the uniform social benefits of domestic members.5 Another social benefit6 Klaus should have received based on the fact that he is an EU members was his five extra holidays, just as his Spanish national counterparts.7Similarly, in Astrids case, she was discriminated against by not being able to receive the same social advantage8 of receiving free banking as her Spanish national counterparts who worked at the bank as well.Sophie was discriminated against on the basis of nationality9 out-of-pocket to the fact that, at college, all students in her course who had lived in Spain for at least ten years could claim a special financial payment to cover the enrollment fee. This is because Sophie had unless been in Spain for a few months. Still, however, this was a discriminatory practice. Additionally, since Heinrich wanted to apply for a student maintenance grant but was told that it was only available to Spanish nationals, this is another form of discrimination based on nationality.10 Klaus and Heinrich, respectively-had prior convictions in Germany for handling stolen motor vehicles and dealing illegal drugs-can argue that they were trying to start a new life in Spain but were discriminated against in their pursuits of operating legally in the country of Spain. Klaus could not receive social security benefits or the same c ompany pension as the other workers at his job who were Spanish nationals. Heinrich needed a grant to go to school. Based on these exclusion from receiving the straightlaced compensation and remuneration, which is a legal right of EU member citizens,11 it could be argued in court that Klaus reverted to an illegal venture in order to make ends meet. Similarly, the same argument could be made of Astrid-that she was forced into a bank job by virtue of discrimination12 as a German national and was forced to stamping ground to illegal methods to help ensure her familys well-being in Spain. Freedom of establishment13 in another member EU country is a right guaranteed to individuals who are EU citizens. In court, it could be argued that Klaus and Astrid were denied this basic right.14 Regarding Heinrich, it could be argued in court that-because he was not allowed to get a grant based on discrimination due to him being a German national15 while residing in Spain-Heinrich turned to dealin g illegal drugs as an activity to pay for his schooling, which would not have been an issue had he not been discriminated against.16 With regard to Sophie, the political group which she had joined was under surveillance by authorities in Spain, however she was not committing an illegal act