62024CJ0296_RES
Case C‑296/24 [Jouxy (
i
)]
SM and PX
v
Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants
(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation, Luxembourg))
Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 18 December 2025
(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 45 TFEU – Freedom of movement for workers – Equal treatment – Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 – Article 7(2) – Social advantages – Family allowance – Condition for granting that allowance to a non-resident worker for a child of his or her spouse or registered partner – Requirement that that worker must ‘support’ that child – Assessment criteria – Presumption based on the existence of a joint household – Directive 2004/38/EC – Article 2(2)(c) – Concept of ‘family member’)
Free movement of persons – Workers – Equal treatment – Social advantages – Persons benefiting from the principle of equal treatment – Children of migrant workers – Concept – Children of a spouse or registered partner of that worker – Included
(Art. 45 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 492/2011, Art. 7(2))
(see paragraphs 27, 29, 31, 32)
Free movement of persons – Workers – Equal treatment – Social advantages – Concept – Family allowance based on the fact that a frontier worker pursues an activity as an employed person in a Member State – Included
(Art. 45 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulation No 492/2011, Art. 7(2))
(see paragraph 28)
Free movement of persons – Workers – Equal treatment – Social advantages – Family allowance based on the fact that a frontier worker pursues an activity as an employed person in a Member State – Condition for granting that allowance to a frontier worker for a child of his or her spouse or registered partner – Requirement relating to support for the child – Proof – Existence of a joint household shared by the non-resident worker and the child – Presumption of supporting the child – Requirement to share a joint household on a full-time basis – None
(Art. 45 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulations No 883/2004, Arts 1(i) and 67, and No 492/2011, Art. 7(2); European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38, Art. 2(2))
(see paragraphs 33-39, 44, 45, operative part)
Free movement of persons – Workers – Equal treatment – Social advantages – Family allowance based on the fact that a frontier worker pursues an activity as an employed person in a Member State – Condition for granting that allowance to a frontier worker for a child of his or her spouse or registered partner – Requirement relating to support for the child – Proof – No joint household shared by the frontier worker and the child – Possibility of providing other objective evidence, such as contributing to that child’s accommodation, travel and/or living expenses
(Art. 45 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulations No 883/2004, Arts 1(i) and 67, and No 492/2011, Art. 7(2); European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38, Art. 2(2))
(see paragraph 40)
Free movement of persons – Workers – Equal treatment – Social advantages – Family allowance based on the fact that a frontier worker pursues an activity as an employed person in a Member State – Condition for granting that allowance to a frontier worker for a child of his or her spouse or registered partner – Requirement relating to support for the child – Proof – Existence of a maintenance contribution from or visiting rights for the other biological or adoptive parent of the child of the spouse or registered partner of the non-resident worker – No effect
(Art. 45 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Regulations No 883/2004, Arts 1(i) and 67, and No 492/2011, Art. 7(2); European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38, Art. 2(2))
(see paragraphs 41-43)
Résumé
In the context of disputes concerning the refusal of the Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants (Children’s Future Fund, Luxembourg) (‘the CAE’) to pay family allowances to frontier workers, the Court of Justice, ruling on requests for a preliminary ruling, provides clarification on the requirement that the non-resident worker must support the child of his or her spouse or registered partner in order to be entitled, under EU law, to such an allowance for that child.
The applicants in the main proceedings are frontier workers residing in Belgium, Germany or France and pursuing an activity as an employed person in Luxembourg.
By decisions of the CAE, the applicants were either refused family allowances for the children of their spouses or registered partners or had their entitlement to allowances received for such children withdrawn with effect from 1 August 2016. According to the CAE, those children did not have a child-parent relationship with the frontier workers concerned, and therefore did not have the status of ‘members of the family’, which confers entitlement to the family allowance provided for under Luxembourg law.
The court of first instance hearing their actions against those decisions upheld them, but the appeal court confirmed the decisions of the CAE.
The applicants in the main proceedings then lodged appeals on a point of law before the referring court.
The referring court notes that, in its judgment in Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants, (
1
) the Court made the frontier worker’s entitlement to the payment of the family allowance in respect of the child of his or her spouse or registered partner, with whom that worker does not have a child-parent relationship, subject to proof that he or she supports that child. (
2
)
In so far as, in the cases in the main proceedings, the appeal court considered that such proof had not been adduced, the referring court is uncertain as to the objective evidence capable of proving that support.
In that context, it asks the Court, in essence, whether Article 45 TFEU, Article 1(i) and Article 67 of Regulation No 883/2004, read in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation No 492/2011 and with Article 2(2) of Directive 2004/38, (
3
) as interpreted by the case-law of the Court, must be interpreted as meaning that the condition for the grant to a non-resident worker, in the Member State of employment, of a family allowance for the child of his or her spouse or registered partner, namely that that worker is required to support that child, is satisfied merely by reason of the fact that that worker and that child share the same household or whether other objective factors must be taken into account in order to establish the existence of such support.
Findings of the Court
As a preliminary point, the Court notes, as regards the family allowance at issue in the main proceedings, that it has already held, in the judgment in Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants, (
4
) first, that an allowance of that nature is a social advantage within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 492/2011. (
5
) Secondly, it held that national legislation under which non-resident workers are entitled to receive that family allowance solely for their own children, and not for a spouse’s children with whom they have no child-parent relationship, but whom those workers support, whereas any child residing in that Member State is entitled to receive that allowance, is contrary to that provision.
In the present case, following that judgment, the appeal court held that the CAE had rightly refused to grant the family allowance at issue in the main proceedings to the applicants on the ground that they did not provide full support for the children of their spouses or registered partners.
In that regard, the Court recalls that, according to the case-law, (
6
) children are presumed to be dependent until the age of 21 years and that the status of dependent member of the family of the child of the spouse or registered partner of a frontier worker may be evidenced objectively by a joint household shared by that worker and the child concerned.
The Court infers from this that the existence of a joint household shared by the non-resident worker and the child of his or her spouse or registered partner is, in principle, sufficient in itself to demonstrate that that worker supports that child, since the joint household characterises a stable connection between them. According to the Court, any other interpretation would not only be contrary to the principle that the provisions of EU law establishing the free movement of workers must be construed broadly, but would also disregard the Court’s case-law (
7
) which requires account to be taken of the definition of ‘family member’ provided for in Article 2(2) of Directive 2004/38, which includes the direct descendants of the spouse or partner, in order to assess whether the frontier worker is able to benefit indirectly from equal treatment under Article 7(2) of Regulation No 492/2011.
The Court concludes from this that the existence of a joint household shared by the non-resident worker and the child of his or her spouse or registered partner is sufficient to demonstrate that the requirement relating to support for that child is met. It may be presumed that that worker contributes to covering at least part of the household expenditure, namely, inter alia, the costs of housing and living expenses and, therefore, of meeting the needs of its members, including those of the child of the spouse or registered partner. The Court specifies, however, that that joint household does not necessarily have to be on a full-time basis. First, given the prevalence of blended families, the child may also live for part of the time with his or her other biological or adoptive parent. Secondly, because he or she is pursuing studies, the child may live away from that household for part of the time.
In view of the referring court’s questions, the Court adds, first, that the national authorities or, where applicable, the national courts cannot require the non-resident worker to establish more specifically, beyond proof of the existence of a joint household, that he or she contributes to the daily expenses or to meeting the particular needs of the child concerned. That said, where there is no joint household at all between the non-resident worker and the child concerned, because, inter alia, the child is pursuing studies, other objective factors displaying a certain degree of stability, such as, in particular, contributing to that child’s accommodation, travel and/or living expenses, must be capable of being taken into account in order to enable that worker to demonstrate that he or she continues to support the child.
Secondly, the existence of a maintenance contribution payable by the other biological or adoptive parent of the child of the spouse or registered partner of the non-resident worker, or the existence of visiting and accommodation rights for that parent are not circumstances that would preclude that worker from supporting that child, with whom he or she shares the same household. Such an exclusion would be contrary to the principle of a broad interpretation of the provisions establishing the free movement of workers. That is all the more so since the maintenance contribution payable by the other biological or adoptive parent of the child does not constitute a condition precluding entitlement to a family allowance for the child of the spouse or registered partner of a resident worker with whom that worker shares the same household.
Thirdly, the grant of the family allowance to a non-resident worker may be refused only in exceptional circumstances. Such a refusal may be justified only if it is apparent from the case file that that worker has made false declarations or does not contribute, in reality, in any way to the costs associated with the upkeep of the child, as those costs are entirely borne by a third party.
Consequently, under EU law, (
8
) the condition for the grant to a non-resident worker, in the Member State of employment, of a family allowance for the child of his or her spouse or registered partner, namely that that worker is required to support that child, is satisfied where that worker and the biological or adopted child of his or her spouse or registered partner form a family unit, which is characterised by the existence of a joint household shared by that worker and that child.
(
i
)	The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.
(
1
)	Judgment of 2 April 2020, Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants (Child of the spouse of a non-resident worker) (C‑802/18, EU:C:2020:269).
(
2
)	The Court relied on the interpretation of Article 1(i) and Article 67 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 (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1, and corrigendum OJ 2004 L 200, p. 1), read in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1) and with Article 2(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77, and corrigendum OJ 2004 L 229, p. 35 and OJ 2005 L 197, p. 34).
(
3
)	Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77, and corrigendum OJ 2004 L 229, p. 35).
(
4
)	Judgment of 2 April 2020, Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants (Child of the spouse of a non-resident worker) (C‑802/18, EU:C:2020:269).
(
5
)	It follows from that provision that non-resident workers are to enjoy, in accordance with the principle of non-discrimination, the same social and tax advantages as national workers.
(
6
)	Judgment of 15 December 2016, Depesme and Others (C‑401/15 to C‑403/15, EU:C:2016:955).
(
7
)	Judgments of 15 December 2016, Depesme and Others (C‑401/15 to C‑403/15, EU:C:2016:95), and of 2 April 2020, Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants (Child of the spouse of a non-resident worker) (C‑802/18, EU:C:2020:269).
(
8
)	The Court relies on Article 45 TFEU, Article 1(i) and Article 67 of Regulation No 883/2004, read in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation No 492/2011 and with Article 2(2) of Directive 2004/38.