CHASTRE ( 1985 ) ECR 973 AND 1027 ) IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT A SOCIAL BENEFIT GUARANTEEING A MINIMUM MEANS OF SUBSISTENCE IN A GENERAL MANNER CONSTITUTED A SOCIAL ADVANTAGE WITHIN THE MEANING OF REGULATION NO 1612/68 OF THE COUNCIL OF 15 OCTOBER 1968 AND MUST THEREFORE BE EXTENDED WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION TO WORKERS HAVING THE NATIONALITY OF OTHER MEMBER STATES .
7 THE NETHERLANDS AND DANISH GOVERNMENTS , HOWEVER , TAKE THE VIEW THAT WORK PROVIDING AN INCOME BELOW THE MINIMUM MEANS OF SUBSISTENCE AS DEFINED BY THE HOST MEMBER STATE CANNOT BE REGARDED AS EFFECTIVE AND GENUINE WORK IF THE PERSON WHO DOES IT IS CLAIMING SOCIAL ASSISTANCE DRAWN FROM PUBLIC FUNDS . IN SUCH A CASE THE WORK DOES NOT PROVIDE THE IMMEDIATE MEANS FOR IMPROVING HIS LIVING CONDITIONS BUT IS MERELY ONE OF THE MEANS BY WHICH HE OBTAINS THE GUARANTEED MINIMUM MEANS OF SUBSISTENCE IN THE HOST MEMBER STATE . IT THEREFORE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AS DEFINED BY THE TREATY . NEVERTHELESS , THE DANISH GOVERNMENT ADDS , WHETHER A PERSON HAS THE STATUS OF A WORKER FALLS TO BE DETERMINED SOLELY IN REGARD TO THE DATE OF THE REQUEST FOR A RESIDENCE PERMIT , SO THAT A PERSON HAVING THE STATUS OF A WORKER ON THAT DATE KEEPS THAT STATUS EVEN IF HE SUBSEQUENTLY FINDS HIMSELF OUT OF WORK AND AS A RESULT BECOMES DEPENDENT ON FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE DRAWN FROM PUBLIC FUNDS .
8 IT IS CLEAR FROM THE TERMS OF THE QUESTION SUBMITTED TO THE COURT AND THE GROUNDS OF THE JUDGMENT MAKING THE REFERENCE THAT THE RAAD VAN STATE SEEKS IN ESSENCE A CLARIFICATION OF THE CRITERIA LAID DOWN BY THE COURT IN LEVIN ( JUDGMENT OF 23 MARCH 1982 IN CASE 53/81 LEVIN V STAATSSECRETARIS VAN JUSTITIE ( 1982 ) ECR 1035 ) WITH REGARD TO THE CASE WHERE A NATIONAL OF ONE MEMBER STATE WHO PURSUES AN EFFECTIVE AND GENUINE ACTIVITY AS AN EMPLOYED PERSON IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE SEEKS TO SUPPLEMENT HIS INCOME FROM THAT ACTIVITY , WHICH IS LOWER THAN THE MINIMUM MEANS OF SUBSISTENCE , SO AS TO MAKE IT UP TO THAT LEVEL BY OBTAINING FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PAYABLE OUT OF THE PUBLIC FUNDS OF THE HOST STATE .
9 ACCORDINGLY IT IS NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE TERMS OF THAT JUDGMENT , IN WHICH THE COURT RULED :
' THE PROVISIONS OF COMMUNITY LAW RELATING TO FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR WORKERS ALSO COVER A NATIONAL OF A MEMBER STATE WHO PURSUES , WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE , AN ACTIVITY AS AN EMPLOYED PERSON WHICH YIELDS AN INCOME LOWER THAN THAT WHICH , IN THE LATTER STATE , IS CONSIDERED AS THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FOR SUBSISTENCE , WHETHER THAT PERSON SUPPLEMENTS THE INCOME FROM HIS ACTIVITY AS AN EMPLOYED PERSON WITH OTHER INCOME SO AS TO ARRIVE AT THAT MINIMUM OR IS SATISFIED WITH MEANS OF SUPPORT LOWER THAN THE SAID MINIMUM , PROVIDED THAT HE PURSUES AN ACTIVITY AS AN