C.P.M. Meeusen v Hoofddirectie van de Informatie Beheer Groep.
Date: 1999-06-08
13 The Court has consistently held that the concept of `worker', within the meaning of the abovementioned provisions, has a specific Community meaning and must not be interpreted narrowly. Any person who pursues activities which are effective and genuine, to the exclusion of activities on such a small scale as to be regarded as purely marginal and ancillary, must be regarded as a `worker'. The essential feature of an employment relationship is, according to that case-law, 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, in particular, Case 66/85 Lawrie-Blum v Land Baden-Württemberg [1986] ECR 2121, paragraphs 16 and 17; and Case C-85/96 Martínez Sala v Freistaat Bayern [1998] ECR I-2691, paragraph 32).
15 The Court did indeed hold, in Case C-107/94 Asscher v Staatssecretaris van Financiën [1996] ECR I-3089, paragraph 26, that the director of a company of which he is the sole shareholder is not carrying out his activity in the context of a relationship of subordination, and so he is not to be regarded as a `worker' within the meaning of Article 48 of the Treaty. However, that result cannot be automatically transposed to his spouse. The personal and property relations between spouses which result from marriage do not rule out the existence, in the context of the organisation of an undertaking, of a relationship of subordination characteristic of an employment relationship.
19 As is clear from Bernini, paragraph 25, study finance awarded by a Member State to children of workers constitutes for a migrant worker a social advantage within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68 where the worker continues to support the child.
21 As the Court held in Case C-57/96 Meints v Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij [1997] ECR I-6689, paragraph 50, that argument disregards the wording of Regulation No 1612/68. It is expressly stated in the fourth recital in the preamble to that regulation that the right of free movement must be enjoyed `without discrimination by permanent, seasonal and frontier workers and by those who pursue their activities for the purpose of providing services' and Article 7 of the Regulation refers, without reservation, to a `worker who is a national of a Member State'. The Court deduced from that and ruled, in Meints, that a Member State may not make the grant of a social advantage within the meaning of Article 7 of the Regulation dependent on the condition that the beneficiaries be resident within its territory.
22 It should also be added that the Court has consistently held that the principle of equal treatment laid down in Article 7 of Regulation No 1612/68 is also intended to prevent discrimination to the detriment of descendants dependent on the worker (see Case 94/84 ONEM v Deak [1985] ECR 1873, paragraph 22). Those descendants can thus rely on Article 7(2) in order to obtain study finance under the same conditions as are applicable to children of national workers (Bernini, paragraph 28).
23 It follows that, in a situation where national legislation, such as that in point in the main proceedings, does not impose any residence requirement on the children of national workers for the financing of their studies, such a requirement must be regarded as discriminatory if it is imposed on the children of workers who are nationals of other Member States.
24 Such a requirement would operate to the detriment of, in particular, migrant workers who, by definition, are resident in a Member State where, as a general rule, the members of their family are also resident.
25 In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the questions referred must be that the dependent child of a national of one Member State who pursues an activity as an employed person in another Member State while maintaining his residence in the State of which he is a national can rely on Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68 in order to obtain study finance under the same conditions as are applicable to children of nationals of the State of employment, and in particular without any further requirement as to the child's place of residence.
The second question
27 In that regard, it should be observed that Article 52 of the Treaty confers on nationals of one Member State who wish to pursue activities as self-employed persons in another Member State the benefit of the same treatment as the host State's own nationals and prohibits any discrimination based on nationality which hinders the taking up or pursuit of such activities. As the Court held in Case C-111/91 Commission v Luxembourg [1993] ECR I-817, paragraph 17, that prohibition covers not only specific rules on the pursuit of occupational activities, but also, as emerges from the General Programme for the abolition of restrictions on the freedom of establishment (OJ, English Special Edition, Second Series (IX), p. 7), any measure which, pursuant to any provision laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in a Member State, or as the result of the application of such a provision, or of administrative practices, hinders nationals of other Member States in their pursuit of activities as self-employed persons by treating nationals of other Member States differently from nationals of the country concerned.
28 That prohibition thus applies to the imposition of a residence requirement in respect of the grant of a social advantage where it has been established that that requirement is discriminatory in nature (Commission v Luxembourg, cited above, paragraph 18).