Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2018:601
Date: 2018-07-25
Language of the case: Finnish
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Subject matter: Social security for migrant workers
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Finland

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 25 July 2018 1. Social security — Migrant workers — EU rules — Substantive scope — Benefits covered and benefits excluded — Distinguishing criteria (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 883/2004, Art. 3(1)) 2. Social security — Migrant workers — EU rules — Substantive scope — Sickness benefits — Definition — Covering the costs to which a severely disabled person’s everyday activities give rise, with the aim of enabling that person, who is not economically active, to study in higher education — Not included (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 883/2004, Art. 3(1)) 3. Citizenship of the Union — Right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States — Social advantages — Benefit consisting in covering the costs to which a severely disabled person’s everyday activities give rise –– Refusal to grant such a benefit to a severely disabled resident of a Member State because he is staying in another Member State in order to pursue his higher education studies there –– Not permissible — Justification —None (Arts 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 31-33) 2. Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 988/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that a benefit such as the personal assistance at issue in the main proceedings, which entails, inter alia, covering the costs to which a severely disabled person’s everyday activities give rise, with the aim of enabling that person, who is not economically active, to study in higher education, does not fall within the concept of ‘sickness benefit’ within the meaning of that provision and is therefore outside the scope of Regulation No 883/2004. (see para. 52, operative part 1) 3. Articles 20 and 21 TFEU preclude the home municipality of a resident of a Member State who is severely disabled from refusing to grant that person a benefit, such as the personal assistance at issue in the main proceedings, on the ground that he is staying in another Member State in order to pursue his higher education studies there. Such a refusal must be regarded as a restriction on the freedom to move and reside within the territory of the Member States, which Article 21(1) TFEU affords to every citizen of the Union. It is true that objectives of national legislation which seek to establish a genuine link between a claimant to short-term incapacity benefit in youth and the competent Member State and to preserve the financial balance of the national social security system, constitute, in principle, legitimate objectives capable of justifying restrictions on the rights of freedom of movement and residence under Article 21 TFEU (judgment of 21 July 2011, Stewart, C‑503/09, EU:C:2011:500, paragraph 90). However, the Court concluded in that case that the conditions requiring the presence of the person claiming the incapacity benefit could not be justified by the objectives mentioned in the preceding paragraph of this judgment. In particular, the Court held that, although the person claiming that benefit lived in a Member State other than the Member State concerned, the fact that there was a genuine and sufficient connection with the latter Member State could be established on the basis of factors other than the claimant’s presence in that Member State prior to her claim, such as the relationship between the claimant and the social security system of that Member State as well as the claimant’s family circumstances (judgment of 21 July 2011, Stewart, C‑503/09, EU:C:2011:500, paragraphs 97 to 102, 104 and 109). The Court also held that that assessment applied with regard to the objective of ensuring the financial balance of the national social security system, since the need to establish a genuine and sufficient connection between the person claiming the benefit in question and the competent Member State enables the latter to satisfy itself that the economic cost of paying that benefit does not become unreasonable (judgment of 21 July 2011, Stewart, C‑503/09, EU:C:2011:500, paragraph 103). Nor can any information be gleaned from the documents before the Court as to the nature of the obstacles that allegedly make it more difficult for the municipality to monitor compliance with the conditions on which use of personal assistance is granted in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, as compared with a situation, permitted by the Finnish legislation, in which the same personal assistance is used outside Finland by a Finnish resident while travelling for business or on holiday. Moreover, it is apparent from the documents before the Court that the Finnish Government has stated that there is currently nothing to suggest that the grant of personal assistance in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings may jeopardise the balance of the national system of social security. (see paras 66, 69-71, 74, 76, 79, operative part 2)