a) On this part, Arturo would want to argue that he had the right to remain in UK as a worker (Art 45 TFEU). Since Arturo has been in UK in 2009 and Romania joined EU in 2009, he would then fall under Directive 2004/38, which entered into forced on 30 April 2006.
Throughout the time Arturo in UK, he had worked as a rowing trainer for two years (assume started from 2009 -2010) which he had now been taken off and be a part time fitness trainer. By adopting the rule laid by the judge in Case 66/85 Lawrie-Blum, as long as Arturo satisfy the essential characteristic of a worker, namely that he is performed a service for or under the direction of another in return for remuneration during certain period, there is a great possibility that Arturo would fall under the concept of the worker.
The concept of worker had been defined widely. Arturo would still be consider as a worker, irrespective that he received less than the minimum wage (Case 53/81 Levin and Case 139/85 Kempf), or that is was a part time job), or even he received social benefit (the case of Kempf) provided that he had conduct an effective and genuine” work (Case 53/81 Levin). Arturo would also need to consider the case C-10/05 Cynthia Mattern and Hajrudin Cikotic v Ministre du Travail er d, arguing that the his training period by becoming a rowing trainer since 2009 may be regarded as practical preparation directly to his actual pursuit of a professional rower, and should not be consider as a bar of his application of Art 45 TFEU. Following the case of C-196/87 Steymann, the term “remuneration” was not restricted to wages, it can also include pocket money or foods. Hence, by taking into account all the circumstances, it is likely that Arturo would consider as a worker under Art 45 TFEU.
As a worker, Arturo would able to rely on Art 20 TFEU, arguing that he would have the right to reside in UK for the