L. N. v Styrelsen for Videregående Uddannelser og Uddannelsesstøtte.
Date: 2013-02-21
25. It should be observed as a preliminary point that Article 20(1) TFEU confers on any person holding the nationality of a Member State the status of citizen of the Union.
27. As the Court has held on numerous occasions, the status of citizen of the Union is destined to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States, enabling those among such nationals who find themselves in the same situation to receive, as regards the material scope of the FEU Treaty, the same treatment in law irrespective of their nationality, subject to such exceptions as are provided for in that regard (see, to that effect, Case C-184/99 Grzelczyk [2001] ECR I-6193, paragraph 31, and Case C-224/98 D’Hoop  [2002] ECR I-6191, paragraph 28).
28. Every citizen of the Union may therefore rely on the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality laid down in Article 18 TFEU, provided for in other Treaty provisions and in Article 24 of Directive 2004/38, in all situations falling within the scope ratione materiae of European Union law. Those situations include the exercise of the fundamental freedoms conferred by inter alia Article 45 TFEU and those relating to the exercise of the freedom conferred by Article 21 TFEU to move and reside within the territory of the Member States (see, inter alia, Case C-85/96 Martínez Sala  [1998] ECR I-2691, paragraph 63; Grzelczyk , paragraphs 32 and 33; Case C-209/03 Bidar [2005] ECR I-2119, paragraphs 32 and 33; and Case C-75/11 Commission  v Austria  [2012] ECR, paragraph 39).
29. There is no provision of the Treaty to suggest that when students who are citizens of the Union move to another Member State to study there, they lose the rights which the Treaty confers on citizens of the Union, including the rights conferred on those citizens when they are in employment in the host Member State (see, to that effect, Grzelczyk , paragraph 35, and Bidar , paragraph 34).
33. As a derogation from the principle of equal treatment provided for in Article 18 TFEU, of which Article 24(1) of Directive 2004/38 is merely a specific expression, Article 24(2) must, according to the Court’s case-law, be interpreted narrowly and in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty, including those relating to citizenship of the Union and the free movement of workers (see, to that effect, Joined Cases C-22/08 and C-23/08 Vatsouras and Koupatantze  [2009] ECR I-4585, paragraph 44, and Case C-75/11 Commission  v Austria , paragraphs 54 and 56).
39. It is settled case-law, however, that the concept of ‘worker’ within the meaning of Article 45 TFEU has an autonomous meaning specific to European Union law and must not be interpreted narrowly (see, to that effect, inter alia Case 66/85 Lawrie-Blum [1986] ECR 2121, paragraph 16; Case 197/86 Brown [1988] ECR 3205, paragraph 21; Case C-3/90 Bernini [1992] ECR I-1071, paragraph 14; and Case C-413/01 Ninni-Orasche [2003] ECR I-13187, paragraph 23).
40. Moreover, that concept must be defined in accordance with objective criteria which distinguish the employment relationship by reference to the rights and duties of the persons concerned. The essential feature of an employment relationship is that, for a certain period of time, a person performs services for and under the direction of another person, in return for which he receives remuneration (see Lawrie-Blum , paragraph 17; Ninni-Orasche , paragraph 24; and also Vatsouras and Kouptantze , paragraph 26).
41. The low level of or origin of the resources for that remuneration, the rather low productivity of the person concerned, or the fact that he works only a small number of hours per week do not preclude that person from being recognised as a ‘worker’ within the meaning of Article 45 TFEU (see, to that effect, Lawrie-Blum , paragraph 21; Case 344/87 Bettray [1989] ECR 1621, paragraph 15; and Bernini , paragraph 16).
42. In order to qualify as a ‘worker’, the person concerned must nevertheless pursue effective and genuine activities which are not on such a small scale as to be regarded as purely marginal and ancillary (see, inter alia, Case 53/81 Levin  [1982] ECR 1035, paragraph 17, and Vatsouras and Kouptantze , paragraph 26 and the case-law cited).
43. In investigating whether a specific case involves effective and genuine employment, the national court must base itself on objective criteria and make a comprehensive assessment of all the circumstances of the case that have to do with the activities and the employment relationship concerned ( Ninni-Orasche , paragraph 27).
46. As regards the argument put forward by the Danish and Norwegian Governments to the effect that the intention the applicant in the main proceedings had when he entered Danish territory to follow a course of study precludes him from having the status of ‘worker’ within the meaning of Article 45 TFEU, it should be remembered that, in order to assess whether employment is capable of conferring the status of worker within the meaning of Article 45 TFEU, factors relating to the conduct of the person concerned before and after the period of employment are not relevant in establishing the status of worker within the meaning of that article. Such factors are not in any way related to the objective criteria referred to in the case-law referred to in paragraph 40 of this judgment ( Ninni-Orasche , paragraph 28).
47. It should be noted that the definition of the concept of ‘worker’ within the meaning of Article 45 TFEU expresses the requirement, which is inherent in the very principle of the free movement of workers, that the advantages conferred by European Union law under that freedom may be relied on only by people genuinely pursuing or genuinely wishing to pursue employment activities. It does not mean, however, that the enjoyment of that freedom may be made contingent on which objectives are being pursued by a national of a Member State in applying to enter the territory of a host Member State, provided that he pursues or wishes to pursue effective and genuine employment activities. Once that condition is satisfied, the motives which may have prompted a worker of a Member State to seek employment in another Member State are of no account and must not be taken into consideration (see, to that effect, Levin , paragraphs 21 and 22, and Case C-109/01 Akrich [2003] ECR I-9607, paragraph 55).
50. Moreover, the Court has held previously that maintenance aid for studies constitutes a social advantage within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68 (see Case 39/86 Lair  [1988] ECR 3161, paragraphs 23 and 24, and Bernini , paragraph 23).