The Queen v Vera Ann Saunders (175/78)

B —Observations submitted by the Commission of the European Communities

According to the Commission the reference to the Court for a prelin ary ruling raises two questions, in other words:1. Whether and to what extent, Community law is concerned with the free movement of workers within the territory of the Member State of which the worker in question is a national;2. If so, whether and to what extent derogations are permitted by Community law as regards the nationals of the Member States concerned from the rules which, according to the provisions of the Treaty, apply to the treatment of nationals of other Member States.After recalling that the Court of Justice, in its judgment in the Rutili case (quoted above) had held that residential orders based on grounds of public policy are compatible with Article 48 of the Treaty provided that in applying them no discrimination is made between the nationals of the Member State imposing them and those of the other Member States, the Commission emphasizes that although Community law is primarily concerned to lessen discrimination to which nationals of other Member States may be subject in each Member State, it has nevertheless also been relied upon in cases in which the victim of discrimination was a national of the Member State in question. The Commission quotes in this respect the judgment of 26 November 1975 in Case 39/75, Robert Gerardus Coenen and Others v The Sociaal-Economische Raad [1975] ECR 1547 and the Knoors case (Case 115/78) and the Auer case (Case 136/78) which are at present pending.The common factor in ail these other cases is however the existence of elements which prevent a given situation being treated in purely national terms. On the other hand, the Commission considers that in the present case the facts do not show any element of that type and that consequently the situation does not enter within the scope of application of Community law. Therefore the further question of possible derogations does not arise.In conclusion, the Commission considers that it is necessary to reply to the question raised by the Crown Court at Bristol ‘that the imposition, in appropriate circumstances, of measures by a Member State restricting the right of residence of its own nationals to part only of the national territory is not contrary to Community law unless the grounds for such restriction be linked with, or related to, events localized in another Member State’.