Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2002:432
Date: 2002-07-11
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Full Court
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Social security for migrant workers;Free movement of workers
Concepts: Citizenship of the Union
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Belgium

SUMMARY — CASE C-224/98 
Summary of the Judgment 
1. Citizenship of the European Union — Treaty provisions — Scope ratione per­
sonae — national of one Member State lawfully residing on the territory of another 
Member State — Included — Effect — Benefit of rights attaching to the status of 
citizen of the European Onion — Application by a Member State to one of its 
nationals who has exercised the right of freedom of movement of less favourable 
treatment than would have been applied if that right had not been exercised — Not 
permissible 
(EC Treaty, Articles 6, 8 and 8A (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC, 17 EC and 
18 EC)) 
2. Citizenship of the European Union — Right to move and reside freely in the territory 
of the Member States — Tideover allowances for young people seeking first 
employment — Grant subject to completion of secondary education in an educational 
establishment of the State concerned — Refusal to grant to a national of that State 
simply because the applicant completed her secondary education in another Member 
State — Not permissible •— Justification — None 
(EC Treaty, Article 8A (now, after amendment, Article 18 EC)) 
1. Union citizenship is destined to be the 
fundamental status of nationals of the 
Member States, enabling those who 
find themselves in the same situation to 
enjoy within the scope ratione materiae 
of the Treaty the same treatment in law 
irrespective of their nationality, subject 
to such exceptions as are expressly 
provided for. The situations falling 
within the scope of Community law 
include those involving the exercise of 
the fundamental freedoms guaranteed 
by the Treaty, in particular those invol­
ving the freedom to move and reside 
within the territory of the Member 
States, as conferred by Article 8 a of the 
Treaty (now, after amendment, 
Article 18 EC). 
In that a citizen of the Union must be 
granted in all Member States the same 
treatment in law as that accorded to 
the nationals of those Member States 
who find themselves in the same situ­
ation, it would be incompatible with 
the right of freedom of movement were 
a citizen, in the Member State of which 
he is a national, to receive treatment 
less favourable than he would enjoy if 
he had not availed himself of the 
opportunities offered by the Treaty in 
relation to freedom of movement. 
Those opportunities could not be fully 
effective if a national of a Member 
I - 6192 
D'HOOP 
State could be deterred from availing 
himself of them by obstacles raised on 
his return to his country of origin by 
legislation penalising the fact that he 
has used them. 
(see paras 28-31) 
2. Community law precludes a Member 
State from refusing to grant the 
tideover allowance to one of its 
nationals, a student seeking her first 
employment, on the sole ground that 
that student completed her secondary 
education in another Member State. 
Legislation of a Member State which 
links the grant of tideover allowances 
to the condition of having obtained the 
required diploma in its territory places 
at a disadvantage certain of its 
nationals simply because they have 
exercised their freedom to move in 
order to pursue education in another 
Member State. 
Such inequality of treatment is contrary 
to the principles which underpin the 
status of citizen of the Union, that is, 
the guarantee of the same treatment in 
law in the exercise of the citizen's 
freedom to move. 
The condition at issue could be justi­
fied only if it were based on objective 
considerations independent of the 
nationality of the persons concerned 
and were proportionate to the legit­
imate aim of the national provisions. In 
that regard, although it is legitimate for 
the national legislature, in the context 
of tideover allowances designed to 
facilitate for young people the transi­
tion from education to the employment 
market, to wish to ensure that there is a 
real link between the applicant for that 
allowance and the geographic employ­
ment market concerned, a single con­
dition concerning the place where the 
diploma of completion of secondary 
education was obtained is nevertheless 
too general and exclusive in nature and 
goes beyond what is necessary to attain 
the objective pursued. 
(see paras 34-36, 38-40, operative part) 
I -6193