SS v Slough Borough Council

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff, a Dutch national, entered the United Kingdom on 3 January 2005 as a single parent with two children. She secured part-time employment as a cleaner from 3 March 2005, working 13 hours per week at a wage of £5 per hour. Initially residing with friends for over a year, she moved on 3 July 2006 to a three-bedroom semi-detached house with a rent of £875 per month. Around this time, she applied for additional jobs but was found by the appeal tribunal not to be a jobseeker seeking further employment. Her weekly income comprised £65 from employment, £28.40 from child benefit, and £72.38 from child tax credit.

Upon moving to the new residence, the Plaintiff claimed housing benefit and council tax benefit, which were denied on the basis that she lacked a right of residence under applicable regulations. The local appeal tribunal dismissed her appeal. Subsequently, she was awarded benefits starting 13 February 2007 after becoming a jobseeker claiming jobseeker's allowance. The current appeal concerns only the period from 3 July 2006 to 12 February 2007.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Plaintiff was a "worker" within the meaning of Article 39 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, thereby entitling her to a right of residence under the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 implementing Directive 2004/38/EC.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined whether the Plaintiff's part-time employment qualified her as a "worker" under EU law, granting her a right of residence. It emphasized that the short duration of employment alone does not preclude worker status (Article 48 of the Treaty). The employment must be "effective and genuine," excluding only activities that are marginal or accessory, as established in Levin and Meeusen. The court instructed that the assessment should rely on objective criteria considering the nature of the employment and relationship as a whole, disregarding factors unrelated to the employment itself, such as conduct before or after the employment period.

The court rejected arguments that the Plaintiff's employment was ancillary due to timing or subsequent activities, and dismissed the relevance of the total duration of residence in the host Member State. It also clarified that allegations of abusive use of worker status cannot affect the initial determination of worker status itself, as abuse presupposes the existence of that status.

Holding and Implications

The Plaintiff's appeal is allowed. The decision of the local appeal tribunal is set aside, and it is determined that the Plaintiff is not a person from abroad for the relevant period. Consequently, the local authority is directed to calculate housing benefit and council tax benefit accordingly for the period from 3 July 2006 to 12 February 2007.

The decision directly affects the Plaintiff's entitlement to benefits for the specified period. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing EU law principles regarding worker status and rights of residence.