, THE QUESTION WHETHER COMMUNITY LAW , IN A CASE SUCH AS THIS , PREVENTS THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE BENEFITS AT ISSUE MUST BE ASSESSED IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THAT REGULATION .
7 BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 2 ( 1 ), REGULATION NO 1408/71 IS TO ' ' APPLY TO WORKERS . . . WHO ARE NATIONALS OF ONE OF THE MEMBER STATES . . . AS ALSO TO THE MEMBERS OF THEIR FAMILIES ' ' . SIMILARLY , ARTICLE 48 GUARANTEES FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS ONLY TO WORKERS OF THE MEMBER STATES . AS IS CLEAR FROM THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT , THE NATIONAL COURT RAISED ITS QUESTION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CASE OF A CHILD WHOSE FATHER IS A NATIONAL OF A NON-MEMBER COUNTRY AND WHOSE MOTHER IS NOT AN EMPLOYED PERSON . UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS , REGULATION NO 1408/71 DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS CASE .
8 DURING THE HEARING BEFORE THE COURT , MR MEADE CONTENDED THAT IT WAS HIS WIFE RATHER THAN HE WHO WAS ENTITLED TO FAMILY ALLOWANCES , ON THE BASIS OF VARIOUS PROFESSIONAL OR TRADE ACTIVITIES IN WHICH SHE HAS ENGAGED . IN THAT CONNECTION , IT IS SUFFICIENT TO NOTE THAT , AS REGARDS THE DIVISION OF JURISDICTION BETWEEN THE NATIONAL COURTS AND THE COURT OF JUSTICE , IT IS FOR THE NATIONAL COURT TO ESTABLISH THE RELEVANT FACTS IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER MRS MEADE IS TO BE REGARDED AS A WORKER WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 1 ( A ) OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 AND WHETHER , IN CONSEQUENCE , THAT REGULATION MAY BE APPLIED TO HER .
9 IT SHOULD BE ADDED , AS THE COURT STATED IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 1 DECEMBER 1977 ( CASE 66/77 , KUYKEN V RIJKSDIENST VOOR ARBEIDSVOORZIENING , ( 1977 ) ECR 2311 ), THAT THE POSITION OF A PERSON WHO HAS GONE TO ANOTHER MEMBER STATE IN ORDER TO FOLLOW A COURSE OF STUDY AND WHO , DURING THAT PERIOD , WAS NOT INSURED UNDER A SOCIAL SECURITY SCHEME SET UP FOR THE BENEFIT OF EMPLOYED PERSONS DOES NOT COME WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 48 TO 51 OF THE TREATY . IT CANNOT THUS BE CONSIDERED THAT WITHDRAWAL OF FAMILY ALLOWANCES PAYABLE TO THE PARENTS OF A CHILD IN THAT SITUATION CONSTITUTES , AS REGARDS THE LATTER , A RESTRICTION ON THE FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT WHICH IS GUARANTEED BY ARTICLE 48 .
10 THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION RAISED SHOULD THUS BE THAT NEITHER REGULATION NO 1408/71 NOR ARTICLE 48 OF THE TREATY PREVENTS FAMILY ALLOWANCES FROM BEING WITHDRAWN PURSUANT TO NATIONAL LEGISLATION ON THE GROUND THAT A CHILD IS PURSUING ITS STUDIES IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE , WHERE THE PARENTS OF THE CHILD CONCERNED ARE NATIONALS OF A NON-MEMBER COUNTRY OR ARE NOT EMPLOYED PERSONS .
Decision on costs
COSTS
11 THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , WHICH HAS SUBMITTED OBSERVATIONS TO THE COURT , ARE