Case No. UKUT-00433-(IAC)

Case C-344/95 [1997] 2 CMLR 187). 24. We bear in mind in the light of St Prix at [38] that Article 7(3) of Directive 2004/38 does not list exhaustively the circumstances in which a migrant worker who is no longer in an employment relationship may nevertheless continue to benefit from that status but the facts of this case are not materially different from Antonissen . There is no suggestion in St Prix that Article 7 (3) should be expanded to include those simply seeking employment; people in that category are, unlike women in the position of Ms St Prix, already provided for. 25. Mr Fouladvand’s submission that the appellant never lost her status as a worker, achieved through being a jobseeker initially, because she never ceased being a jobseeker until she started full-time work seeks to equate those who are to be treated as having acquired the status of worker through jobseeking with those who are workers through employment. He seeks, in effect, to apply the protections for those who have ceased to be employed, set out in article 7 (3) of the Citizenship Directive, to those who are workers for the purpose of European Law through being jobseekers. 26. These submissions takes no account of the established law arising from Antonissen and EC Commission v Belgium that there are limits to how long a person can seek employment, and that the individual must be able to show that she has a genuine chance of being employed. Those seeking employment as to be treated as though they are workers as otherwise, there would be significant constraints on the freedom of movement for workers. The protections under EU law for those who have ceased to be workers, as set out in Article 7 (3) are clearly for those who have ceased employment, to protect the right to move to seek work. 27. The effect of Mr Fouladvand’s submission would be that there is no end to the period in which an individual could be a jobseeker. There is no support in either the Citizens Directive or the jurisprudence for such a proposition; on the contrary Article 7 (3) of the Citizenship Directive places restrictions on those who can continue to be treated as workers. 28. We turn next to the question as to how participation in an approved training course should be considered. 29. We are grateful to Ms Wise for her further written submissions on the nature of approved training. We bear in mind that there have been since 2009 major and substantial changes to the benefits system in the United Kingdom including wholesale changes to the relevant regulations governing approved training. Those changes are not relevant to the facts of these appeals; what we say about approved training is thus only of historical interest and cannot be taken as relevant to the current provisions. 30. The appellant has not provided any material relating to the legislative and regulatory framework governing approved training or as to the content of the courses. We accept that, due to the closures of the colleges the appellant attended and the lapse of time, that it would have been difficult to obtain evidence relevant to the courses. What is clear from the letter from Jobcentre Plus is that there were three periods of approved training from 11 June 2006 to 14 September 2007, 14 April to 25 July 2008 and 15 March 2009 to 18 May 2009. 31. In her written submissions, Ms Wise states that the primary power to make provision for training and training allowances is in section 2 of the Employment and Training Act 1973. Further, regulation 170 of the Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 1996 provides that a person may be entitled to Income Based JSA without being available for employment; or without having entered in a jobseeker’s agreement; or without actively seeking employment if they are in receipt of a training allowance. There are some exceptions to this if the training is training for which 18-24 year olds are eligible. 32. It is noted also that “approved training” is training approved by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and is training to address skills issues and help move a claimant into work or closer to the labour market. A training allowance is paid by DWP/JCP whilst a jobseeker is attending full time training as regulation 15 of the JSA Regulations precludes a claimant from being actively available and being able to seek employment whilst they are undertaking full time training. The training on average would be 20 hours per week. Training credits are awarded for the period of the training allowance to protect the claimant’s national insurance record. 33. It is also submitted that approved training is compulsory if the Jobcentre has mandated the claimant to undertake the training to address skills gaps and help move the claimant into work or closer to the labour market. Sanctions would be applied if a claimant refuses to attend the course. The training could be more than 20 hours or less than 20 hours depending on the course length and structure. The courses are run by external organisations, such as local colleges. A training allowance is paid only if the training is for 16 hours or more a week and is equal in amount to the benefit they were receiving. 34. It is, however, accepted that the appellant was still effectively a jobseeker whilst attending the approved training, and the training allowance paid by her local Jobcentre would have included 10p Jobseekers Allowance to administratively keep her Jobseekers Allowance claim open. It is thus submitted that whilst being paid a DWP/JCP training allowance, a claimant is still effectively unemployed, and cannot be said to have employment status. The respondent noted also that the training certificates provided by the appellant show that she has ESOL and essential skills training the purpose of which is to give claimants with English as a second language understanding of spoken, listening, written and reading English, and to help them progress towards employment. 35. The respondent’s case is that a person undertaking approved training and in receipt of a training allowance does not have employment status. It is for the appellant to show that the approved training did constitute employment but she has adduced nothing to rebut the submissions made by the respondent. 36. We do not consider that attending an approved course as a student could be considered as an employment relationship. It is, we consider, not arguable that the relationship meets the relevant criteria for an employment relationship within the meaning of EU law as set out in