Van Duyn v The Home Office 179 178 All England Law Reports [1974] 3 All ER f, or in the employment of, the Church of Scientology. She was returned to The change of rate from to per cent to 8 per cent announced by the Chancello ess o 2. herlands that evening. She brought an action against the Home Office in of the Exchequer which is to be effective on and from 29th July 1974 will apply et 'ell she claimed a declaration that she was entitled under art all bills of costs the taxation of which is completed on or after that date irrespec • 48a of the EEC Treaty EEC Regulation 1612/68, to accept the offer of employment, to move of the date when the work was transacted. art tb of y within the United Kingdom for that purpose, to stay within the United King- 3. For this purpose the taxation shall be deemed to be completed on the date for the purposes of employment, and to be given leave to enter the United or after 29th July 1974 when the taxing officer finalises the taxation by issuing datn. She alleged that she had been refused entry solely on the grounds of public certificate, allocatur or other notification of the final result of the taxation. and that such a refusal was unlawful for, on the true interpretation of art 48(3) 4. There will therefore be no necessity to apportion bills of costs pre- siteEEC Treaty and art 3c of EEC Directive 64/221 a member state could only refuse post- 29th July 1974, as at first anticipated by the profession. Ilona of another member state entry on grounds of public policy for reasons based 5. An exception will arise when a bill which constitutes a tax invoice has b usively on the personal conduct of the individual person concerned. In its defence delivered by a solicitor to his own client and is subsequently submitted for taxa orne Office (i) denied that either art 48 of the EEC Treaty or EEC Directive pursuant to the Solicitors Act 1957, when the date of delivery of the bill is the effe I conferred on the plaintiff any right that was directly enforceable by her in the date. ..'Of the United Kingdom and (ii) alleged that in any event the refusal to grant e to enter was based on the plaintiff's personal conduct within the meaning of GRAHAM GRAHAM-G birective 64/221, art 3, in that she had been associated with the Church of Scien- Chief Taxing Ma 24th July 1974 , in the past, was a practising Scientologist and was intending to work at a ology establishment in the United Kingdom. The plaintiff moved for an order RSC Ord 114, r 2, that the following questions be referred to the European bflustice for a preliminary ruling under art 177e of the EEC Treaty: (a)whether Van Duyn v The Home Office ome Office's refusal on grounds of public policy to allow the plaintiff leave to the United Kingdom was in the circumstances contrary to art 48(1)(2) of the Treaty, EEC Regulation 1612/68, art r, and EEC Directive 64/221, art 3(I), and CHANCERY DIVISION tether the facts relied on by the Home Office were capable of amounting to PENNYCUICK V-C al conduct within the meaning of EEC Directive 64/221, art 3; (c) whether 8th, tith, IzIth FEBRUARY 1974 of the EEC Treaty and EEC Directive 64,221 were directly applicable. European Economic Community — Reference to European Court — Request for preli ruling concerning interpretation of treaty — Power of national court to refer ques 'The application would be granted and an order would be made forthwith g the questions to the European Court for the following reasons— considers necessary to enable it to give judgment — Question relating to free may workers within European Economic Community — Member state having power to estions (a) and (b) raised an arguable 'question of interpretation' in respect of Ofthe EEC Treaty, and of art national of another member state entry on grounds of public policy — Measures ta 3 of EEC directive 64/221 which, by virtue of grounds of public policy to be based exclusively on personal conduct of individual con 'Of the EEC Treaty, was binding on the United Kingdom (see p 185 h and declar to f, post). Dutch national refused entry into United Kingdom — Dutch national seeking ecision on the true meaning of those provisions was 'necessary' within the that refusal unlawful — Dutch national alleging refusal on grounds of public policy Home Office alleging refusal based on personal conduct of national — Home Office Of art 177 in order to enable judgment to be given (see p 186 g, post). Dutch national not having any right directly enforceable in United Kingdom courts iere.were no grounds for deferring a decision on whether a reference should delivery of reply Dutch national seeking reference of questions raised by issues — .flptil after the trial of the action or even until after discovery, since there were necessary to enab questions 'questions of interpretation' — Whether decision on theni !issues of fact and of national law to be determined and no prospect of any Tr iteing produced that would illuminate the matters pleaded (see p 186 h to give judgment — Whether appropriate time for reference to be made — EEC post). 48, 177 - EEC Directive 64/221, art 3. rmore it was necessary to refer question (c) for it was not clear whether EEC In 1968 a government Minister stated in the House of Commons that the goy Treaty was directly applicable so as to confer on individuals rights considered that the practice of Scientology was socially harmful and that it ha 13y them in the courts of a member state (see p 187 d to f, post). drawn its acceptance as an educational establishment of the college set up by the, of Scientology at East Grinstead. Pursuant to government policy foreign II' Iiiet out at p i85 a to d, post intending to work or study at Scientology establishments were not allowed rovides: `(i) Any national of a Member State shall, irrespective of his place of into the United Kingdom. After the United Kingdom's accession to the EEC ve the right to take up an activity as an employed person, and to pursue such 1972 the Home Office announced that that policy would be continued of the territory of another Member State in accordance with the provisions laid apply to nationals of states that were members of the European Economic Co 4,! rekulation or administrative action governing the employment of nationals . (20)uHt the plaintiff, a Dutch national, was offered employment at the coll eatshpaIl18,5ine apnadrti:icuploasr,t In 1973 a ry have the right to take up available employment Grinstead. She had taken a course in Scientology and had been working in of another Member State with the same priority as nationals of that State.' Out at p 186 c, establishment in Amsterdam for six months. When she arrived at Gam!! post t at p 911 .7 g, post on her way to take up the post at East Grinstead, she was refused entry jack 1;- out at Kingdom by an immigration officer on the ground that the Secretary p 185 g to j, post sidered it undesirable to give leave to anyone to enter the United King [1974] 3 All ER Van Duyn v The Home Office (Pennycuick V-C) 181 180 All England Law Reports ch D applied for an order that: (1) pursuant to RSC Ord 114, r 2, the following questions Notes minary hearing For control of immigration of nationals of EEC countries, see 4 Halsbury's Laws (4rl a 8 be referred to the European Court of Justice for a preli under art 177 the EEC Treaty: (a) whether art 48 of the EEC Treaty was directly applicable so as Edn), 493, 494, para too'. of For the reference of questions to the European Court, see 39A Halsbury's Laws to confer on individuals rights enforceable by them in the courts of the United Kingdom ; (b) whether EEC Directive 64/221, adopted on 25th February 1964 in accordance (3rd Edn) para 38. with the EEC Treaty, was directly applicable so as to confer on individuals rights Cases referred to in judgment CMLR 1. enforceable by them in the courts of the United Kingdom; (c) whether the Home Lowenbriiu Munchen v Grunhalle Lager International Ltd [1974] r office's refusal based on grounds of public policy to allow the plaintiff leave to enter Schmidt v Secretary of State for Home Affairs [1969] i All ER 904, [1969] 2 Ch 149, [196A b 129a. the United Kingdom in order to take employment with the Church of Scientology 2 WLR 337, 133 JP 2.74, CA, Digest (Cont Vol C) 17, on the basis that it was 'undesirable to give anyone leave to enter the United Kingdom Cases also cited on the business of or in the employment of that organisation' was contrary to (i) the Albatros SARL v Societe des Pétroles et des Combustibles Liquides (SOPECO) [19651 provisions of art 48(I), (2), of the EEC Treaty and/or art of EEC Regulation 1612/68 CMLR 159, CJEC. and/or art 3(I) of EEC Directive 64/221 insofar as the effect of the policy was to dis- Van Gend en Loos, NV v Nederlandse Algemene Transport- en Expeditie Onderneming C criminate between nationals of member states of the European Economic Community [1963] CMLR 105, CJEC. other than of the United Kingdom and United Kingdom citizens on whom no similar Tariefcomissie Corriere Association Generale des Fabricants Belges de Ciment Portland Artificiel, SA v SA restrictions were placed, and (ii) the provisions of art 3(r) of EEC Directive A_4,221 / Dufour [1967] CMLR 2,50, Belgian Cour de Cassation.