Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2008:300
Date: 2008-05-22
Language of the case: Polish
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: Citizenship of the Union
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Poland

Summary of the Judgment Citizenship of the European Union – Right of free movement and residence in the territory of the Member States – Social advantages (Art. 18 EC) Article 18(1) EC is to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which it refuses, generally and in all circumstances, to pay to its nationals a benefit granted to civilian victims of war or repression solely because they are not resident in the territory of that State throughout the period of payment of the benefit, but in the territory of another Member State. It is true that both the wish to limit the obligation of solidarity with civilian victims of war or repression solely to those who have a connection with the people of the State concerned by means of a residence condition, which is regarded as an expression of the extent to which such persons are connected with that society, and the necessity to verify that the recipients continue to satisfy the conditions for the grant of that benefit constitute objective considerations of public interest which are capable of justifying the fact that the conditions for the grant or payment of the benefit may affect the freedom of movement of the citizens of that Member State. However, although it is true that a residence condition constitutes a criterion capable of showing that there is such a connection, the fact remains that the circumstance that a person is a national of the Member State granting the benefit at issue and lived in that State for more than 20 years may be sufficient to establish a connection between that State and the recipient of the benefit. In those circumstances, the requirement of residence throughout the period of payment of the benefit concerned must be held to be disproportionate, since it goes beyond what is necessary to ensure that such a connection exists. Furthermore, as regards the necessity of verifying that the recipient continues to satisfy the conditions for the grant of that benefit, a residence condition also goes beyond what is necessary to achieve that objective and, therefore, fails to comply with the principle of proportionality. (see paras 35, 37, 39-47, operative part)