Jacqueline Förster v Hoofddirectie van de Informatie Beheer Groep.
Date: 2008-11-18
27. The conditions of entitlement to the worker’s right to remain in the host Member State are set out exhaustively in Article 2 of Regulation No 1251/70 (see Case C‑257/00 Givane and Others  [2003] ECR I-345, paragraph 29).
32. Regulation No 1251/70 is thus not applicable in the present case.
33. Therefore, the answer to the first question must be that a student in the situation of the applicant in the main proceedings cannot rely on Article 7 of Regulation No 1251/70 in order to obtain a maintenance grant.
The second to fourth questions
36. It is settled case-law that a citizen of the European Union lawfully resident in the territory of the host Member State can rely on Article 12 EC in all situations which fall within the scope ratione materiae  of Community law (Case C-85/96 Martínez Sala [1998] ECR I‑2691, paragraph 63, and Bidar , paragraph 32).
37. Those situations include those involving the exercise of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty and those involving the exercise of the right to move and reside within the territory of the Member States conferred by Article 18 EC (see Case C-148/02 Garcia Avello  [2003] ECR I-11613, paragraph 24, and Case C-403/03 Schempp  [2005] ECR I-6421, paragraph 18).
38. In this connection, the Court has already held that a national of a Member State who goes to another Member State and pursues secondary education there exercises the freedom to move guaranteed by Article 18 EC (see Case C‑224/98 D’Hoop [2002] ECR I-6191, paragraphs 29 to 34, and Bidar , paragraph 35).
39. With regard to social assistance benefits, the Court has held that a citizen of the Union who is not economically active may rely on the first paragraph of Article 12 EC where he or she has been lawfully resident in the host Member State for a certain time ( Bidar , paragraph 37).
41. The situation of a student who is lawfully resident in another Member State thereby falls within the scope of application of the Treaty within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 12 EC for the purposes of obtaining a maintenance grant (see Bidar , paragraph 42).
43. However, that provision does not preclude a national of a Member State who, by virtue of Article 18 EC and the provisions adopted to implement that article, is lawfully resident in the territory of another Member State where he or she intends to start or pursue education from relying during that residence on the fundamental principle of equal treatment enshrined in the first paragraph of Article 12 EC (see, to that effect, Bidar , paragraph 46).
48. In Bidar , the Court observed that, although the Member States must, in the organisation and application of their social assistance systems, show a certain degree of financial solidarity with nationals of other Member States, it is permissible for a Member State to ensure that the grant of assistance to cover the maintenance costs of students from other Member States does not become an unreasonable burden which could have consequences for the overall level of assistance which may be granted by that State (see Bidar , paragraph 56).
49. The Court also pointed out that it is legitimate for a Member State to grant assistance covering maintenance costs only to students who have demonstrated a certain degree of integration into the society of that State ( Bidar , paragraph 57).
50. On the basis of those considerations, the Court held that the existence of a certain degree of integration may be regarded as established by a finding that the student in question has resided in the host Member State for a certain length of time ( Bidar , paragraph 59).
53. That requirement must also be proportionate to the legitimate objective pursued by the national law in order to be justified in the light of Community law. It may not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain that objective.
56. The Court has also stated that, in order to be proportionate, a residence requirement must be applied by the national authorities on the basis of clear criteria known in advance (see Case C-138/02 Collins  [2004] ECR I-2703, paragraph 72).
66. With a view to answering the question, it should be recalled that, since the effects of Bidar  were not temporally limited, the interpretation of Article 12 EC which follows from that judgment may, and must, be applied by the national courts to legal relationships arising and established before that judgment, provided that in other respects the conditions enabling an action relating to the application of that rule to be brought before the courts having jurisdiction are satisfied (see, to that effect, Case 61/79 Denkavit italiana [1980] ECR 1205, paragraph 16, and Bidar , paragraph 66).
67. According to settled case-law, the principle of legal certainty – which is one of the general principles of Community law – requires, particularly, that rules of law be clear, precise and predictable in their effects, in particular where they may have negative consequences on individuals and undertakings (see, to that effect, Case C-143/93 Van Es Douane Agenten [1996] ECR I-431, paragraph 27, and Case C‑347/06 ASM Brescia  [2008] ECR I-0000, paragraph 69).