Judgment of the Court of 20 March 2001 in Case C-33/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Amsterdam): Hassan Fahmi, M. Esmoris Cerdeiro-Pinedo Amado v Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank (Article 41 of the EEC-Morocco Cooperation Agreement — Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Social security — Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 39 EC and 43 EC) — Freedom of movement for persons — Non-discrimination — Recipients of an invalidity pension no longer residing in the competent Member State — Amendment of the legislation on study finance)
Date: 2001-07-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Morocco, Netherlands, family benefit, interpretation of the law, migrant worker, nationality

C 200/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.7.2001

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 20 March 2001

in Case C-33/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Amsterdam): Hassan
Fahmi, M. Esmoris Cerdeiro-Pinedo Amado v Bestuur van
de Sociale Verzekeringsbank (1)

(Article 41 of the EEC-Morocco Cooperation Agreement —
Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Social security
— Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 Articles 48
and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 39
EC and 43 EC) — Freedom of movement for persons — Non-
discrimination — Recipients of an invalidity pension no
longer residing in the competent Member State — Amend-
ment of the legislation on study finance)

(2001/C 200/02)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-33/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Arrondissements-
rechtbank te Amsterdam (District Court, Amsterdam) (Nether-
lands) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Hassan Fahmi, M. Esmoris Cerdeiro-
Pinedo Amado and Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank
— on the interpretation of Article 41 of the Cooperation
Agreement between the European Economic Community and
the Kingdom of Morocco signed at Rabat on 27 April 1976
and approved on behalf of
the Community by Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2211/78 of 26 September 1978 (OJ
1978 L 264, p. 1), Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
security schemes to employed persons,
to self-employed
persons and to members of their families moving within the
Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6), as
amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 of 30 April
1992 (OJ L 1992 L 136, p. 1), Article 7 of Regulation (EEC)
No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom
of movement for workers within the Community (Official
Journal, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475), and
Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Articles 39 EC and 43 EC) — the Court, composed of:
G.C.I Rodrı´guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola
(Rapporteur), M. Wathelet and V. Skouris (Presidents of
Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevo´ n,
R. Schintgen and F. Macken,
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 20 March 2001, in which it has
ruled:

1. Neither the Cooperation Agreement between the European
Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco signed at
Rabat on 27 April 1976 and approved on behalf of the
Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2211/78 of
26 September 1978, nor Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now,
after amendment, Article 39 EC), nor Council Regulation
(EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of
social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
persons and to members of their families moving within the
Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, as amended by Council
Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 of 30 April 1992, and
Regulation No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968
on freedom of movement for workers within the Community,
may be interpreted as meaning that they prevent a Member
State from gradually abolishing an allowance for dependent
children aged between 18 and 27 years pursuing studies
provided that, as in the case of the legislation at issue in the
main proceeding, its abolition does not involve discrimination
bases on nationality.

2. A person entitled to a pension payable under the legislation of
a single Member State and residing on the territory of another
Member State cannot rely on either Article 3(1) of Regulation
No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation
No 2001/83, as amended by Regulation No 1274/92, or
any other provision of that regulation in order to obtain from
the Member State under whose legislation he receives his
pension study finance such as that introduced by the Wet op de
studiefinanciering (Law on study finance).

3. A national of a Member State who has exercised the right to
freedom of movement for workers guaranteed by Article 48 of
the Treaty and has ceased to exercise his occupational activity
in the host Member State and returned to his Member State of
origin,
in which his children also reside, cannot rely on
Article 48 or on Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68 in
order to obtain from the Member State in which he was
employed a right to have his children’s studies financed in the
same conditions as those applied by that State to its own
nationals.

4. Article 41 of the EEC-Morocco Cooperation Agreement must
be interpreted as meaning that where the dependent children of
a Moroccan worker do not reside in the Community, neither the
Moroccan worker concerned nor his children can rely, in regard
to study finance such as that introduced by the Wet op de
studiefinanciering, on the principle of
the prohibition of
discrimination on the basis of nationality laid down in that
provision in relation to social security.

(1) OJ C 121 of 1.5.1999.