FUNDS , ARE PAYABLE TO PERSONS HAVING THE STATUS OF WORKERS .
3 MR KEMPF SUBSEQUENTLY BECAME UNABLE TO WORK AS A RESULT OF SICKNESS AND OBTAINED SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS UNDER THE ZIEKTEWET ( LAW ON SICKNESS INSURANCE ). HE ALSO RECEIVED SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS UNDER BOTH THE ABOVE-MENTIONED LAW ON UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT AND THE ALGEMENE BIJSTANDSWET ( LAW ON SOCIAL ASSISTANCE ). THE LAST-MENTIONED LAW PROVIDES FOR GENERAL SOCIAL ASSISTANCE TO THE NEEDY WHICH IS WHOLLY FINANCED OUT OF PUBLIC FUNDS .
4 ON 30 NOVEMBER 1981 MR KEMPF APPLIED FOR A RESIDENCE PERMIT IN THE NETHERLANDS IN ORDER ' TO PURSUE AN ACTIVITY AS AN EMPLOYED PERSON ' IN THAT COUNTRY . IT WAS REFUSED BY A DECISION OF THE LOCAL CHIEF OF POLICE DATED 17 AUGUST 1982 . THE PLAINTIFF THEN MADE AN APPLICATION FOR REVIEW TO THE STAATSSECRETARIS VAN JUSTITIE , WHICH WAS REJECTED BY A DECISION OF 9 DECEMBER 1982 ON THE GROUND , INTER ALIA , THAT HE DID NOT QUALIFY AS A FAVOURED EEC CITIZEN WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE NETHERLANDS LEGISLATION ON IMMIGRATION MATTERS BECAUSE HE HAD HAD RECOURSE TO PUBLIC FUNDS IN THE NETHERLANDS AND WAS THEREFORE MANIFESTLY UNABLE TO MEET HIS NEEDS OUT OF THE INCOME RECEIVED FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT .
5 BY AN APPLICATION DATED 10 JANUARY 1983 MR KEMPF APPEALED AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE STAATSSECRETARIS VAN JUSTITIE BEFORE THE JUDICIAL DIVISION OF THE RAAD VAN STATE . THAT IS THE BACKGROUND TO THE ACTION BEFORE THE RAAD VAN STATE , WHICH STAYED THE PROCEEDINGS AND REFERRED THE FOLLOWING QUESTION TO THIS COURT FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING :
' WHERE A NATIONAL OF A MEMBER STATE PURSUES WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE AN ACTIVITY WHICH MAY IN ITSELF BE REGARDED AS EFFECTIVE AND GENUINE WORK WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE COURT ' S JUDGMENT IN LEVIN V STAATSSECRETARIS VAN JUSTITIE , DOES THE FACT THAT HE CLAIMS FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PAYABLE OUT OF THE PUBLIC FUNDS OF THE LATTER MEMBER STATE IN ORDER TO SUPPLEMENT THE INCOME HE RECEIVES FROM THAT ACTIVITY EXCLUDE HIM FROM THE PROVISIONS OF COMMUNITY LAW RELATING TO FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR WORKERS?
'
6 MR KEMPF AND THE COMMISSION SUBMIT THAT THAT QUESTION CALLS FOR A NEGATIVE ANSWER . THEY STATE THAT THE SCOPE RATIONE PERSONAE OF THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR WORKERS , WHICH ARE TO BE INTERPRETED BROADLY , IS DETERMINED SOLELY BY THE NATURE OF THE WORK AND DOES NOT DEPEND ON THE INCOME PRODUCED BY IT . CONSEQUENTLY , WORK WHICH IN ITSELF CONSTITUTES EFFECTIVE AND GENUINE WORK DOES NOT CEASE TO DO SO MERELY BECAUSE THE PERSON WHO DOES IT HAS RECOURSE TO BENEFITS DRAWN FROM PUBLIC FUNDS IN ORDER TO SUPPLEMENT HIS WAGES UP TO THE LEVEL OF THE MINIMUM MEANS OF SUBSISTENCE . IN THEIR VIEW THAT CONCLUSION IS CONFIRMED BY RECENT JUDGMENTS OF THE COURT ( JUDGMENTS OF 27 MARCH 1985 IN CASE 249/83 HOECKX V KALMTHOUT AND CASE 122/84 SCRIVNER V