Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2008:681
Date: 2008-12-04
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Fourth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Citizenship of the Union;Right of entry and residence
Concepts: Exclusive nature of the role of the national court in making the reference;Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice;Citizenship of the Union
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

Summary of the Judgment 1. Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Jurisdiction of the national court – Establishing and assessing the facts of the dispute – Need to make an order for reference and relevance of the questions referred – Assessment by the national court (Art. 234 EC) 2. Preliminary rulings – Jurisdiction of the Court – Limits – Clearly irrelevant questions and hypothetical questions put in a context not permitting a useful answer – Questions not related to the purpose of the main proceedings (Art. 234 EC) 3. Citizenship of the European Union – Right of free movement and residence in the territory of the Member States – Social advantages (Art. 18 EC) 1. In proceedings under Article 234 EC, it is solely for the national court, which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of the case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court. Consequently, where the questions submitted concern the interpretation of Community law, the Court is in principle bound to give a ruling. (see para. 20) 2. The Court may refuse to rule on a question referred by a national court, in proceedings under Article 234 EC, only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of Community law that is sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its purpose, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it. (see para. 20) 3. Article 18(1) EC must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which the latter refuses to pay certain benefits granted to surviving spouses of victims of war solely because they are domiciled in the territory of certain specific Member States. It is true that both the willingness to provide a suitable benefit to beneficiaries resident outside the Member State concerned, taking into account the current differences between the cost of living, income and the average level of social benefits paid in that Member State and in the Member State in which the person entitled resides, and the need to ensure effective monitoring of the employment and social situation of those entitled, in particular their incomes, constitute objective considerations of a public interest of a kind that might justify the fact that the conditions or detailed rules for payment of those benefits may affect freedom of movement. However, such a residence condition cannot be regarded as proportionate to the objectives pursued in so far as it expressly limits the application of the suspension of those benefits to beneficiaries who are domiciled or resident on the territory of certain Member States without taking account of the existence of Member States, other than those mentioned in the national legislation, in which the cost of living is lower than that of some of the Member States referred to in that legislation. Likewise, the need to ensure effective monitoring of the employment and social situation of those entitled should be carried out in exactly the same way in all Member States, whether they are referred to in the national legislation or not. Moreover, in so far as such rules merely suspend payment of the benefits provided for by that regulation, it cannot validly be submitted that they are suitable for the purpose of adapting such benefits to take account of the current differences between the Member State concerned and the beneficiary’s State of residence with regard to cost of living, income and the average level of social benefits. Lastly, while it is true that, as regards benefits granted on the basis of income, monitoring of the employment and social situation of the beneficiaries may prove necessary, it is nevertheless the case that the suspension of such benefits constitutes a measure which goes beyond what is necessary to carry out such monitoring. (see paras 38-39, 41-44, 46-48, operative part)