# C_2015302EN.01002701.xml

| 14.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 302/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 302/27

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg) lodged on 24 July 2015 — Noémie Depesme, Saïd Kerrou v Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la recherche

(Case C-401/15)

(2015/C 302/35)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour administrative

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Noémie Depesme, Saïd Kerrou

Appellants:

Respondent: Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la recherche

Respondent:

Questions referred

Questions referred

In order properly to meet the requirements of non-discrimination under Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 (1) on freedom of movement for workers within the Union, together with Article 45(2) TFEU, when taking into account the actual degree of attachment of a non-resident student, who has applied for financial aid for higher-education studies, with the society and with the labour market of Luxembourg, the Member State in which a frontier worker has been employed or has carried out his activity in the conditions referred to in Article 2 bis of the Law of 22 June 2000 on State financial aid for higher-education studies, as added by the Law of 19 July 2013 in direct consequence of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 20 June 2013 (Case C-20/12) (2),

1

bis

2

| — | should the requirement that the student be the ‘child’ of that frontier worker be taken to mean that the student must be the frontier worker’s ‘direct descendant in the first degree whose relationship with his parent is legally established’, with the emphasis being placed on the child-parent relationship established between the student and the frontier worker, which is supposed to underlie the abovementioned attachment, or |
| --- | --- |

—

should the requirement that the student be the ‘child’ of that frontier worker be taken to mean that the student must be the frontier worker’s ‘direct descendant in the first degree whose relationship with his parent is legally established’, with the emphasis being placed on the child-parent relationship established between the student and the frontier worker, which is supposed to underlie the abovementioned attachment, or

| — | should the emphasis be placed on the fact that the frontier worker ‘continues to provide for the student’s maintenance’ without necessarily being connected to the student through a legal child-parent relationship, in particular where a sufficient link of communal life can be identified, of such a kind as to establish a connection between the frontier worker and one of the parents of the student with whom the child-parent relationship is legally established? |
| --- | --- |

—

should the emphasis be placed on the fact that the frontier worker ‘continues to provide for the student’s maintenance’ without necessarily being connected to the student through a legal child-parent relationship, in particular where a sufficient link of communal life can be identified, of such a kind as to establish a connection between the frontier worker and one of the parents of the student with whom the child-parent relationship is legally established?

| — | From the latter perspective, where the contribution — presumably, non-compulsory — of the frontier worker is not exclusive but made in parallel with that of the parent or parents connected with the student through a legal child-parent relationship, and therefore in principle under a legal duty to maintain the student, must that contribution satisfy certain criteria as regards its substance? |
| --- | --- |

—

From the latter perspective, where the contribution — presumably, non-compulsory — of the frontier worker is not exclusive but made in parallel with that of the parent or parents connected with the student through a legal child-parent relationship, and therefore in principle under a legal duty to maintain the student, must that contribution satisfy certain criteria as regards its substance?

---

(1)  OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1.

1

(2)  EU:C:2013:411.

2

---