Facts

The appellant, a French national born in 1990, arrived in Switzerland on 1 December 2017 and obtained an EU/EEA residence permit valid until 30 November 2022. He carried out gainful employment in 2018 and 2019, notably as a courier, with income evidenced by his AHV statement. On 22 August 2019, he suffered a work-related accident, resulting in temporary incapacity to work. His assignment contract was terminated on 30 October 2019.

On 13 May 2020, the appellant applied for benefits from the Disability Insurance Office (DI Office) of the Canton of Vaud. By decision of 1 December 2022, the DI Office granted him a full time-limited pension (from 1 November 2020 to 30 November 2021), finding that he had total incapacity to work in his previous occupation but had had full capacity to work in an adapted occupation since 13 August 2021. The appellant appealed against this decision, which was still pending on 20 February 2024.

On 2 September 2022, the appellant applied for an extension of his EU/EEA residence permit. By decision of 11 April 2023, the Population Service of the Canton of Vaud (Cantonal Service) refused this extension and ordered his removal from Switzerland. The appellant contested this decision, but the Administrative and Public Law Court of the Cantonal Tribunal of the Canton of Vaud dismissed his appeal by judgment of 20 February 2024. The appellant then filed a public law appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, seeking the quashing of the cantonal judgment and the extension of his residence permit.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court examined whether the appellant met the conditions for obtaining an extension of his EU/EEA residence permit as a worker under the Agreement on the Free Movement of Persons (AFMP). According to Art. 6 Annex I AFMP, an EU/EEA national employee in employment for a period of at least one year is issued with a residence permit valid for a minimum of five years, automatically renewable. However, if the worker is involuntarily unemployed for more than twelve consecutive months, the validity period of the permit may be limited to a minimum of one year on first renewal.

The concept of “worker” under the AFMP is an autonomous concept of EU law, interpreted broadly. It requires the performance of genuine and effective work in return for remuneration, under the direction of an employer, excluding marginal or ancillary activities. This interpretation is confirmed by the consistent case law of the Federal Supreme Court and the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU). In the present case, the appellant did not demonstrate that he had held an employment that could confer worker status after his accident on 22 August 2019. Although he received placement assistance from the DI Office, this measure is aimed at professional reintegration and does not in itself constitute proof of worker status. The appellant did not provide concrete evidence of actual and effective employment after his accident.

The Federal Supreme Court also examined whether the appellant could rely on the right to remain in Switzerland under Art. 4 Annex I AFMP, which provides for this right in the event of permanent incapacity to work. However, this provision requires that the incapacity be permanent and that the worker have lost employee status as a result of that incapacity. In this case, the DI Office found that the appellant had regained capacity to work in an adapted occupation…