Case C-213/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 July 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht, Germany) — Wendy Geven v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Frontier worker — Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 — Child-raising allowance — Not granted — Social advantage — Residence condition)
Date: 2007-09-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: education grant, free movement of workers, frontier worker, interpretation of the law, residence

C 211/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.9.2007

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 July 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozial-
gericht, Germany) — Gertraud Hartmann v Freistaat
Bayern

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 July 2007
(reference
from the
preliminary
Bundessozialgericht, Germany) — Wendy Geven v Land
Nordrhein-Westfalen

ruling

for

a

(Case C-212/05) (1)

(Case C-213/05) (1)

(Frontier worker — Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 —
Transfer
another Member State —
Non-working spouse — Child-raising allowance — Not
granted to spouse — Social advantage — Residence condition)

residence

of

to

(Frontier worker — Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 —
Child-raising allowance — Not granted — Social advantage
— Residence condition)

(2007/C 211/05)

Language of the case: German

(2007/C 211/06)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundessozialgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gertraud Hartmann

Defendant: Freistaat Bayern

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundessozialgericht —
Interpretation of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council
of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers
within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968(II),
p. 475) — Concept of worker — German official having trans-
ferred his permanent residence to Austria while continuing to
work in Germany — Refusal to grant child-raising allowance
(Erziehungsgeld) to his spouse of Austrian nationality resident
in Austria and not working in Germany — Social advantage

Operative part of the judgment

transferred his

in that State, has

1) A national of a Member State who, while maintaining his employ-
ment
residence to another
Member State and has since then carried on his occupation as a
frontier worker can claim the status of migrant worker for the
purposes of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of
the Council of
15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the
Community.

2) In circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings,
Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68 precludes the spouse of a
migrant worker carrying on an occupation in one Member State,
who does not work and is resident in another Member State, from
being refused a social advantage with the characteristics of German
child-raising allowance on the ground that he did not have his
permanent or ordinary residence in the former State.

Referring court

Bundessozialgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Wendy Geven

Defendant: Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundessozialgericht —
Interpretation of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68
of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement
for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition
legislation
1968(II), p. 475) — Social advantage — National
under which the grant of child-raising allowance
(Erzie-
hungsgeld) to persons who do not have their residence or habi-
tual place of
territory is conditional on
exceeding the minor employment threshold (Geringfügigkeits-
grenze) of 15 hours a week

stay in national

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of
15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the
Community does not preclude the exclusion, by the national legislation
of a Member State, of a national of another Member State who resides
in that State and is in minor employment (between 3 and 14 hours a
week) in the former State from receiving a social advantage with the
characteristics of German child-raising allowance on the ground that
he does not have his permanent or ordinary residence in the former
State.

(1) OJ C 193, 6.8.2005.

(1) OJ C 193, 6.8.2005.