Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2025:562
Date: 2025-07-10
Language of the case: Italian

Summary C-151/24 – 1 
Case C-151/24 [Luevi] i 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
27 February 2024 
Referring court: 
Corte costituzionale (Italy) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
27 February 2024 
Appellant: 
Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) 
Respondent: 
VM 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Constitutional legitimacy proceedings brought before the Corte costituzionale 
(Constitutional Court) on the initiative of the Corte di Cassazione (Court of 
Cassation), concerning questions on the constitutional legitimacy of certain 
provisions of Italian law which the latter must apply in proceedings pending 
before it. In particular, those provisions make the grant of the social allowance to 
third-country nationals subject to possession of a long-term resident’s EU 
residence permit and to proof that they have resided legally for a continuous 
period of at least 10 years in the national territory. However, the person 
concerned, the respondent in the main proceedings, holds only an EU residence 
permit for family reasons and the INPS therefore refused to grant her that 
allowance. 
 
i The name of the present case is fictitious. It does not correspond to the real name of any of the parties to the proceedings. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-151/24 
 
2  
Subject matter and legal basis of the request 
In the context described above, the Constitutional Court is making the present 
reference to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling pursuant to 
Article 267(2) TFEU, as the answer to the questions on constitutional legitimacy 
requires the interpretation of the relevant provisions of EU law, in particular 
Article 12 of Directive 2011/98. 
Question referred for a preliminary ruling 
Is Article 12(1)(e) of Directive 2011/98/EU of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 13 December 2011 on a single application procedure for a single 
permit for third-country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member 
State and on a common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a 
Member State, giving specific expression to the protection of the entitlement to 
social security benefits provided for in Article 34(1) and (2) of the Charter of 
Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as meaning that it 
covers assistance such as the social allowance under Article 3(6) of legge 8 agosto 
1995, n. 335 (Riforma del sistema pensionistico obbligatorio e complementare) 
(Law No 335 of 8 August 1995 reforming the compulsory and complementary 
pension scheme), and does EU law therefore preclude national legislation which 
fails to extend to foreign nationals holding a single permit as referred to in that 
directive the assistance already granted to foreign nationals on condition that they 
hold a long-term resident’s EU residence permit? 
Provisions of European Union law and case-law relied on 
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’): Article 34, 
on entitlement to social security benefits. 
Directive 2011/98/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
13 December 2011 on a single application procedure for a single permit for third-
country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a Member State and on a 
common set of rights for third-country workers legally residing in a Member State 
(‘Directive 2011/98’): Article 12(1)(e), read in conjunction with Article 3(b) and 
(c) and recitals 2, 19 and 20. 
Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (‘Regulation 
No 883/2004’): Articles 3, 4 and 70 and Annex X. 
Regulation (EU) No 1231/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
24 November 2010 extending Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) 
No 987/2009 to nationals of third countries who are not already covered by these 
Regulations solely on the ground of their nationality: (‘Regulation 
No 1231/2010’): Article 1. 
LUEVI 
 
3 
Judgments of the Court of Justice of 2 September 2021, INPS (Childbirth and 
maternity allowances for holders of single permits), C-350/20, EU:C:2021:659; of 
15 July 2021, The Department for Communities in Northern Ireland, C-709/20, 
EU:C:2021:602, of 15 September 2015, Alimanovic, C-67/14, EU:C:2015:597; of 
25 February 2016, García-Nieto and Others, C-299/14, EU:C:2016:114; of 
11 November 2014, Dano and Others, C-333/13, EU:C:2014:2358; of 29 April 
2004, Skalka, C-160/02, EU:C:2004:269; of 20 June 1991, Newton, C-356/89, 
EU:C:1991:265; and of 12 October 1978, Belbouab, 10/78, EU:C:1978:181. 
Provisions of national law and case-law relied on 
Legge 8 agosto 1995, n. 335 – Riforma del sistema pensionistico obbligatorio e 
complementare (Law No 335 of 8 August 1995 reforming the compulsory and 
complementary pension scheme, ‘Law No 335/1995’): Article 3(6), which 
governs the social allowance, paid by the State (through the INPS, the appellant in 
the main proceedings), upon application, to persons over the age of 67 
experiencing economic hardship because they have no income or because their 
income is below the maximum amount of that social allowance and who, by 
reason of old age, have reduced working capacity. The allowance is granted 
irrespective of whether the recipient has been a worker and is solely within the 
category of assistance (as the Constitutional Court made clear in its judgment 
No 137/2021). 
In order to qualify for the social allowance, applicants must: 
– if they are Italian nationals (or nationals of another EU Member State), have 
their permanent residence in Italy; 
– if they are nationals of a third country (outside the EU), 
(a) hold the long-term resident’s EU residence permit (formerly ‘residence 
permit’) as provided for in Article 9 of decreto legislativo 25 luglio 1998, no. 286 
(Testo unico delle disposizioni concernenti la disciplina dell’immigrazione e 
norme sulla condizione dello straniero) (Legislative Decree No 286 consolidating 
the provisions regulating immigration and the rules relating to the status of foreign 
nationals), of 25 July 1998, as amended pursuant to Directive 2003/109/EC. That 
requirement was laid down in Article 80(19) of legge 23 dicembre 2000, n. 388, 
recante «Disposizioni per la formazione del bilancio annuale e pluriennale dello 
Stato (legge finanziaria 2001) (Law No 388 laying down provisions for drawing 
up the annual and multiannual budget of the State (Finance Law 2001) of 
23 December 2000 (‘Law No 388/2000’); 
(b) have resided legally for a continuous period of at least 10 years in the national 
territory. That requirement was laid down in Article 20(10) of decreto-legge 25 
giugno 2008, n. 112 – Disposizioni urgenti per lo sviluppo economico, la 
semplificazione, la competitività, la stabilizzazione della finanza pubblica e la 
perequazione tributaria (Decree-Law No 112 of 25 June 2008 laying down urgent 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-151/24 
 
4  
measures for economic development, simplification, competitiveness, the 
stabilisation of public finances and fiscal balance), converted, with amendments, 
into legge 6 agosto 2008, n. 133 (Law No 133 of 6 August 2008) (‘Decree-Law 
No 112/2008’). 
Costituzione della Repubblica italiana (Constitution of the Italian Republic): 
Articles 3 (principle of equality), 38 (right to social assistance for every citizen) 
and 117 (constraints in the constitution and deriving from EU law and 
international obligations in the exercise of legislative powers). 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure and the essential arguments 
of the parties in the main proceedings 
1 VM, a third-country national (from outside the EU) who only holds an EU 
residence permit for family reasons but does not have a long-term resident’s EU 
residence permit, applied to the INPS for the social allowance provided for in 
Article 3(6) of Law No 335/1995. The INPS refused to grant the allowance. 
2 At first instance, the refusal of the allowance was confirmed. However, on appeal, 
the Corte d’appello (Court of Appeal) granted VM’s application, taking the view 
that, for the purposes of granting that allowance, the requirement of continuous 
residence for at least 10 years in the national territory (laid down in Article 20(10) 
of Decree-Law No 112/2008) had implicitly abolished the requirement to hold a 
long-term resident’s EU residence permit (laid down in Article 80(19) of Law 
No 388/2000). 
3 The INPS appealed against the appellate judgment before the Corte di Cassazione 
(Court of Cassation). 
4 In support of its appeal on a point of law, the INPS first of all referred to the case-
law of the Court of Cassation, under which both the above-mentioned conditions 
must be satisfied, since one does not replace the other but is additional to it. 
5 In addition, the INPS observed that constitutional case-law had already confirmed 
the constitutional legitimacy of Article 80(19) of Law No 388/2000 and 
recognised that, within the limits permitted by EU law on the status of third-
country nationals who are long-term residents, the legislature may accord certain 
benefits falling within the category of assistance solely to citizens and persons 
resident in Italy who are considered to be equivalent to citizens and who can 
demonstrate stable and active integration into the territory, in particular from the 
social and economic point of view (judgment of the Constitutional Court 
No 50/2019). 
6 Finally, the INPS recalled the case-law of the European Union, and in particular 
the judgment of 14 November 2014, Dano and Others, C-333/13, according to 
which, under Article 70(4) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, special non-
contributory cash benefits (such as the social allowance at issue) are to be 
LUEVI 
 
5 
provided exclusively in the Member State in which the persons concerned reside, 
in accordance with its legislation. It follows that, in order to prevent nationals of 
other Member States from becoming an unreasonable burden on the social 
assistance system of the host Member State, ‘there is nothing to prevent the grant 
of such benefits to Union citizens who are not economically active from being 
made subject to the requirement that those citizens fulfil the conditions for 
obtaining a right of residence under Directive 2004/38 in the host Member State’. 
In that regard, reference is also made to the judgments of 15 September 2015, 
Alimanovic, C-67/14, and of 15 July 2021, The Department for Communities in 
Northern Ireland, C-709/20. 
7 In short, according to the INPS it would be paradoxical, in the light of EU law and 
case-law which permit limitations on social assistance benefits intended to 
alleviate the risk of poverty for family members of EU Member State nationals 
who do not hold a long-term residence permit, to grant family members of 
workers who are nationals of third countries (outside the EU), such as the 
respondent VM, unconditional access to those benefits. 
8 The respondent, VM, submits that in so far as it makes the grant of the social 
allowance subject to possession of a long-term resident’s EU residence permit, 
Article 80(19) of Law No 388/2000 is contrary to Directive 2011/98/EU. 
9 In particular, in its judgment of 2 September 2021, INPS (childbirth and maternity 
allowances for holders of a single permit), C-350/20, the Court of Justice, ruling 
on a question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Constitutional Court on 
maternity allowances, held that Article 12(1) of Directive 2011/98/EU applies 
both to third-country nationals who have been admitted to a Member State to 
work and to third-country nationals admitted to a Member State for purposes other 
than to work and who are allowed to work and who hold a residence permit in 
accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002 of 13 June 2002 laying 
down a uniform format for residence permits for third-country nationals. The 
Court of Justice has also held that the principle of equal treatment set out in 
Article 12(1)(e) of that directive concerned benefits falling within the branches of 
social security defined by Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social 
security systems. 
10 In that regard, VM challenges the assertions made by the INPS that presuppose a 
distinction between social security and social assistance, arguing that such a 
distinction is not relevant for the purposes of defining the scope of the above-
mentioned regulation, which also includes special non-contributory cash benefits. 
Furthermore, the classification, envisaged by the INPS, of the social allowance as 
a poverty support measure would run counter to the age requirement (67 years) 
that is a precondition for its grant; in VM’s view, that means that the allowance 
should be classified as an old-age benefit as referred to in Article 3(1) of 
Regulation (EC) No 883/2004. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-151/24 
 
6  
11 In the context of the dispute, the Court of Cassation took the view that, although 
in its judgment No 50 of 2019 the Constitutional Court had already examined 
Article 80(19) of Law No 388/2000 as regards an alleged incompatibility with 
Article 3 of the Constitution (principle of equal treatment), and declared it lawful, 
the question of that article’s constitutional legitimacy arises again in so far as it 
denies the social allowance to a third-country (non-EU) national who does not 
have a long-term resident’s EU residence permit. The reason for that is that, in the 
meantime, the Court of Justice has made it clear in the above-mentioned judgment 
of 2 September 2021, INPS (childbirth and maternity allowances for holders of a 
single permit), C-350/20, that the principle of equal treatment in the access to 
benefits provided for in Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 does not concern only 
holders of a single work permit, but also applies to holders of a residence permit 
for purposes other than to work, who have been given access to the labour market 
in the host Member State. In that regard, the Court of Cassation considers that the 
reference in Article 12(1)(e) of Directive 2011/98/EU to Regulation (EC) 
No 883/2004 should not be limited solely to the sectors referred to in Article 3(1) 
of that regulation, but should also apply to the benefits referred to in Article 3(3), 
referring to the subsequent Article 70 and Annex X to that regulation, which also 
includes the Italian social allowance. 
12 Consequently, with reference to Articles 3 and 11, the first paragraph of Article 38 
and the first paragraph of Article 117 of the Constitution, that latter article in 
relation to Article 34 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 
and Article 12(1)(e) of Directive (EU) 2011/98, the Court of Cassation raised 
questions concerning the constitutional legitimacy of Article 80(19) of Law 
No 388/2000, ‘in so far as it makes payment of the social allowance to third-
country nationals subject to the possession of the (former) residence permit 
[currently, long-term resident’s EU residence permit]’. 
13 The Constitutional Court is now called upon to resolve the doubts as to 
constitutional legitimacy raised by the Court of Cassation in the proceedings 
before it. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
14 The Constitutional Court notes that the case before it concerns a question of the 
constitutional legitimacy of a provision of national law which, alongside 
Articles 3 and 38 of the Constitution, contains rules of primary and secondary EU 
law having direct effect in relation to access to social security benefits. 
15 It considers that the answer to the question on the constitutional legitimacy of 
Article 80(19) of Law No 388/2000 requires, first of all, an answer to the question 
of whether the social allowance falls within the scope of the social security 
benefits in relation to which third-country nationals holding a residence permit for 
work purposes or which, in any event, permits them to work, are entitled to equal 
treatment under Article 12(1)(e) of Directive 2011/98/EU, read in the light of 
LUEVI 
 
7 
Articles 3 and 70 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EU) 
No 1231/2010. 
16 The Constitutional Court has therefore decided to stay the proceedings and to ask 
the Court of Justice for an interpretation of those provisions of EU law. 
17 The first part of the order for reference sets out the national legislation on the 
social allowance, which is granted, upon application, to persons who have no 
income or are destitute and who, because of their age, have reduced working 
capacity. 
18 Italian nationals or nationals of an EU Member State residing permanently in 
Italy, and third-country nationals who simultaneously fulfil two conditions, 
namely that they hold a long-term resident’s EU residence permit and that they 
have resided legally for a continuous period of at least 10 years in the national 
territory, may receive the allowance. 
19 The case in the main proceedings concerns doubts as to the constitutional 
legitimacy of the legislative provision which introduced, for non-EU nationals, the 
requirement of a long-term resident’s EU residence permit, namely Article 80(19) 
of Law No 388/2000 (see paragraph 11 above). 
20 In that regard, the Constitutional Court confirms the principles it set out in a 
similar case, in judgment No 50/2019, in which it held that Article 80(19) of Law 
No 388/2000 is consistent with Articles 3 and 38 of the Constitution, concerning, 
respectively, the principle of equality and the right to social assistance to which 
every Italian citizen is entitled. 
21 In the first place, the Constitutional Court reiterates that, in its view, there is no 
constitutional obligation to grant the social allowance to third-country nationals 
who do not have a long-term resident’s residence permit. 
The Constitution requires equality to be maintained between Italian and Union 
citizens, on the one hand, and third-country nationals, on the other, only as regards 
services and benefits that meet basic needs connected with the exercise of 
inviolable human rights. In those extreme and limited circumstances, the provision 
of such benefits is not a component of social assistance (which under Article 38 of 
the Constitution is solely accorded to ‘citizens’), but a necessary instrument to 
guarantee inviolable human rights, which constitute an absolute minimum and are 
not called into question by the national provisions at issue. 
However, beyond that absolute minimum, in view of the limited nature of the 
resources available, the legislature has discretion to graduate by means of 
restrictive criteria, or even to exclude, the access of non-EU nationals to 
supplementary social assistance benefits. In relation to those benefits, where it is 
citizenship itself, whether Italian or EU citizenship, that provides grounds for 
payment of the benefit to members of the community, the legislature may 
legitimately require non-EU nationals to satisfy additional requirements, which 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-151/24 
 
8  
are not manifestly unreasonable. Non-EU nationals may be required to prove they 
are stably and actively integrated, as is the case for the social allowance, where 
beneficiaries must satisfy the two above-mentioned conditions. 
On the basis of those principles, the Constitutional Court considers that the 
requirement to hold a long-term resident’s EU residence permit, laid down in 
Article 80(19) of Law No 388/2000, is lawful. That permit, which is issued for an 
indefinite period to those who have held a residence permit for at least five years, 
have an adequate income for the purposes of subsistence and accommodation, and 
who have passed a language proficiency test, presupposes a certain level of social 
and economic integration into the host State. 
22 In the second place, the Constitutional Court states that, in its view, an obligation 
to grant the social allowance to third-country nationals who do not hold a long-
term resident’s residence permit cannot be derived from Article 12 of Directive 
2011/98/EU. As has been seen, that is the legislative parameter in the light of 
which the Constitutional Court must verify, in the present proceedings, the 
constitutional legitimacy of the requirement at issue before the Court of Cassation. 
23 In support of that assertion, the Constitutional Court analyses the subjective and 
objective scope of the right to equal treatment set out in Article 12 of Directive 
2011/98/EU, while stating that the Court of Justice retains sole jurisdiction to 
provide a uniform interpretation in its answer to the question referred for a 
preliminary ruling. 
24 Article 12(1) of Directive 2011/98/EU provides for the right to equal treatment, in 
relation to nationals of the Member State where they reside, of ‘third-country 
workers as referred to in points (b) and (c) of Article 3(1) [of Directive 2011/98]’ 
who have been admitted to that Member State ‘for the purpose of work in 
accordance with Union or national law’ (Article 3(1)(c)) or ‘for purposes other 
than work in accordance with Union or national law, who are allowed to work and 
who hold a residence permit in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1030/2002’ 
(Article 3(1)(b)). 
25 As regards the subjective scope of that right, the Constitutional Court observes 
that the wording of the provision clearly indicates that obtaining one of the 
residence permits it mentions is not sufficient for a non-EU national to benefit 
from the same regime as that granted to nationals of the host Member State, since 
it is expressly required that they be ‘workers’, that is to say that they work or have 
worked there. 
26 As regards its objective scope, the Constitutional Court observes that the right 
applies in relation to the most significant aspects of the employment relationship, 
corresponding to various risks linked to the employment relationship, expressly 
listed in the above-mentioned Article 12(1). Those include, in point (e), ‘branches 
of social security, as defined in Regulation (EC) No 883/2004’, specifically in 
Article 3 of that regulation, entitled ‘Matters covered’. 
LUEVI 
 
9 
27 Article 3(1) of Regulation No 883/2004 lists, inter alia, the branches of social 
security relating to sickness, maternity and equivalent paternity benefits (which, it 
should be recalled, were examined in Case C-303/19 of the Court of Justice, cited 
by the respondent, VM, in support of her argument), invalidity and old-age 
benefits, benefits in respect of accidents at work and occupational diseases, and 
unemployment benefits. Article 3(3) provides that Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 
‘shall also apply to the special non-contributory cash benefits covered by 
Article 70’, while Article 3(5) expressly excludes social and medical assistance, 
among other things, from the regulation’s scope. 
Article 70(1) defines ‘special non-contributory cash benefits’ (also known as 
‘mixed benefits’) as those ‘provided under legislation which, because of its 
personal scope, objectives and/or conditions for entitlement, has characteristics 
both of the social security legislation referred to in Article 3(1) and of social 
assistance’. In particular, as clarified by the subsequent paragraph 2 of that article, 
it means those benefits which ‘(a) are intended to provide either: (i) 
supplementary, substitute or ancillary cover against the risks covered by the 
branches of social security referred to in Article 3(1), and which guarantee the 
persons concerned a minimum subsistence income having regard to the economic 
and social situation in the Member State concerned; or (ii) solely specific 
protection for the disabled (…), and (b) where the financing exclusively derives 
from compulsory taxation intended to cover general public expenditure and the 
conditions for providing and for calculating the benefits are not dependent on any 
contribution in respect of the beneficiary (…), and (c) are listed in Annex X’. 
The above-mentioned Annex X, which lists the special non-contributory benefits 
included in the various Member State systems, expressly includes the Italian 
social allowance in question. 
28 In view of the above, the Constitutional Court states that, in its opinion, the 
reference in Article 12(1)(e) of Directive 2011/98/EU to branches of social 
security, as defined in Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, in no way allows the 
principle of equal treatment to be extended automatically to all social benefits 
covered by that regulation, contrary to the submissions of the respondent, VM. 
29 First of all, from a literal point of view, in identifying the benefits to which the 
right to equal treatment in question applies, Article 12(1)(e) of Directive 
2011/98/EU indicates that the reference does not include all the benefits falling 
within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, but only those which fall 
within the ‘branches of social security, as defined in [that regulation]’, which 
should be understood as being the specific branches of social security referred to 
in Article 3(1) of that regulation. Those do not include special non-contributory 
benefits, which are covered in Article 3(3). 
30 In addition, Article 12 recognises the right to equal treatment only for third-
country nationals who are ‘workers’ (see paragraph 25 above), whereas the special 
non-contributory benefits referred to in Article 70 of Regulation (EC) 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-151/24 
 
10  
No 883/2004 do not necessarily presuppose a direct or indirect link with an 
employment relationship and therefore with contributions made to the Treasury 
(see paragraph 27 above). Therefore, the wording of the relevant provisions shows 
that such special benefits clearly differ from a structural and functional point of 
view from the social security benefits intended to address the events referred to in 
Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004. The reference in Article 12(1)(e) of 
Directive 2011/98/EU is to be understood as referring solely to those benefits. 
31 In support of that interpretation of Article 12 of Directive 2011/98/EU, the 
Constitutional Court recalls that the Court of Justice has held that a special non-
contributory cash benefit has a different purpose from that of social security 
benefits (judgment of 29 April 2004, Skalka, C-160/02, paragraph 25) and that it 
‘has much in common with social assistance, particularly since the grant of the 
benefit provided for is not dependent on the completion of periods of 
employment’ (judgment of 20 June 1991, Newton, C-356/89, paragraph 13). 
32 Moreover, precisely because of that difference in functions, Regulation (EC) 
No 883/2004 provides for two different systems: 
(a) for the social security benefits referred to in Article 3(1) of the Regulation, a 
system based on equality of treatment and the ability to export benefits, in 
accordance with Articles 4 and 7 of the regulation; 
(b) for special non-contributory cash benefits (including the social allowance at 
issue), Article 70(3) of the regulation provides that the principle of exportability 
does not apply, so that, pursuant to Article 70(4), they ‘shall be provided 
exclusively in the Member State in which the persons concerned reside, in 
accordance with its legislation (…) by and at the expense of the institution of the 
place of residence’. In so doing, the European legislature wished to make access 
to the benefits at issue conditional on the applicant’s having ties to the territory of 
the State required to bear the financial burden. As regards that provision, the 
Court has held that ‘there is nothing to prevent the grant of such benefits to Union 
citizens who are not economically active from being made subject to the 
requirement that those citizens fulfil the conditions for obtaining a right of 
residence under Directive 2004/38 in the host Member State’ (judgment of 
11 November 2014, Dano and Others, C-333/13, paragraph 83; see also, to that 
effect, judgment of 25 February 2016, García-Nieto and Others, C-299/14, 
paragraph 52). 
33 Consequently, where the person concerned is an EU citizen, the system in 
question means that, if the citizen is in a Member State other than the one of 
which he or she is a national, such residence can only be deemed to exist if the 
requirements for an EU residence permit for long-term residents in an EU 
Member State other than the Member State of origin are also met. For Union 
citizens, Directive 2004/38/EC and, in particular, Article 7(1) thereof are thus 
applicable. Pursuant to that article, in order to be able to reside on the territory of 
another Member State for a period of longer than three months, all Union citizens 
LUEVI 
 
11 
must be workers or self-employed persons in the host Member State or have 
sufficient resources for themselves and their family members, including sickness 
insurance, not to become a burden on the social assistance system of the host 
Member State. Finally, under Article 16(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC, Union 
citizens acquire the right of permanent residence after residing legally for a 
continuous period of five years in the host Member State. 
34 In the legal framework described, the Constitutional Court further observes that, 
in so far as Union citizens cannot, in the absence of such requirements, be granted 
special non-contributory cash benefits in a Member State other than that of which 
they are a national, Member States should not be required to grant such benefits to 
third-country nationals who do not demonstrate significant ties on their territory, 
as attested, first and foremost, by the existence of an employment relationship. 
35 Moreover, the European legislation on the coordination of social security, 
originally designed only for Union citizens who move within the territory of the 
Union for work purposes, has been extended over time to third-country nationals 
who are lawfully resident in EU territory in order to pursue an occupation there, 
first by means of case-law (judgment of 12 October 1978, Belbouab, C-10/78) and 
then by the EU legislature. 
36 With regard in particular to Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, the extension to third-
country nationals was provided for in Regulation (EU) No 1231/2010. Pursuant to 
Article 1 of that regulation, the current social security coordination regime 
therefore applies both to nationals of EU Member States who move to the territory 
of the Union for the purpose of work and to third-country nationals residing 
legally in a Member State. Such persons cannot be accorded more extensive 
protection and must therefore, like nationals of Member States, prove that they 
have a contribution relationship with the social security system of the State from 
which the payment of benefits is sought. 
37 The Constitutional Court concludes that, in its view, third-country nationals, such 
as VM in the present case, to whom Article 12(1)(e) of Directive 2011/98/EU 
applies, may receive the same treatment as nationals of the Member State in which 
they reside only if they are workers and only as regards benefits relating to the 
branches of social security listed in Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, 
whereas, in order to receive the special benefits referred to in Article 70 of that 
regulation – including the social allowance at issue – they must necessarily be 
subject to the conditions laid down by the EU coordination regulations and by the 
legislation of the host State. 
38 However, since the uniform interpretation of EU law is a matter exclusively for 
the Court of Justice, the Constitutional Court stays the proceedings and refers the 
above-mentioned question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.