Case C-158/07: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 November 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — Jacqueline Förster v Hoofddirectie van de Informatie Beheer Groep (Freedom of movement for persons — Student who is a national of one Member State and goes to another Member State to follow a training course — Student maintenance grant — Citizenship of the Union — Article 12 EC — Legal certainty)
Date: 2008-11-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: education grant, foreign student, interpretation of the law, residence permit, social-security benefit

C 6/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.1.2009

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. declares that by maintaining provisions under which the age at
which officials have the right to receive the old-age pension varies
according to whether they are men or women, the Italian Republic
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 141 EC;

2. orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 November
2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale
Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — Jacqueline Förster v
Hoofddirectie van de Informatie Beheer Groep

1. A student in the situation of the applicant in the main proceedings
cannot rely on Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1251/70 of the
Commission of 29 June 1970 on the right of workers to remain in
the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that
State in order to obtain a maintenance grant.

2. A student who is a national of a Member State and travels to
another Member State to study there can rely on the first paragraph
of Article 12 EC in order to obtain a maintenance grant where he
or she has resided for a certain duration in the host Member State.
The first paragraph of Article 12 EC does not preclude the applica-
tion to nationals of other Member States of a requirement of five
years' prior residence.

3. In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, Community
law, in particular the principle of legal certainty, does not preclude
the application of a residence requirement which makes the right of
students from other Member States to a maintenance grant subject
to the completion of periods of residence which occurred prior to the
introduction of that requirement.

(Case C-158/07) (1)

(1) OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.

(Freedom of movement for persons — Student who is a
national of one Member State and goes to another Member
State to follow a training course — Student maintenance
grant — Citizenship of the Union — Article 12 EC — Legal
certainty)

(2009/C 6/06)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Jacqueline Förster

Defendant: Hoofddirectie van de Informatie Beheer Groep

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Centrale Raad van Beroep
— Interpretation of Article 12 EC, Article 18 EC, Article 7 of
Regulation (EEC) No 1251/70 of the Commission of 29 June
1970 on the right of workers to remain in the territory of a
Member State after having been employed in that State (OJ,
English Special Edition 1970 (II), p. 402), and Article 3 of
Council Directive 93/96/EEC of 29 October 1993 on the right
of residence for students (OJ 1993 L 317, p. 59) — Student
who is a national of one Member State and goes to another
Member State to follow a training course, at the same time
working as an employed person in the second Member State
but who has, meanwhile, ceased that employment.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 November
2008 (Reference for
a preliminary ruling from the
Supreme Court — Ireland) — The Competition Authority
v Beef Industry Development Society Ltd, Barry Brothers
(Carrigmore) Meats Ltd

(Case C-209/07) (1)

(Competition — Article 81(1) EC — Concept of an ‘agree-
ment having as its object the restriction of competition’ —
Agreement to reduce production capacity — Beef and veal)

(2009/C 6/07)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: The Competition Authority

Respondents: Beef
Brothers (Carrigmore) Meats Ltd

Industry Development Society Ltd, Barry