Ulf Kazimierz Radziejewski v Kronofogdemyndigheten i Stockholm.
Date: 2012-11-08
23. It should be noted at the outset that, first, as stated by the Swedish Government in its written observations, the Swedish debt relief procedure does not entail the divestment of the debtor, with the result that it cannot be classified as an insolvency procedure within the meaning of Article 1 of Regulation No 1346/2000 (see, to that effect, Case C‑341/04 Eurofood IFSC  [2006] ECR I‑3813, paragraph 46).
29. In that regard, it should be noted that all of the provisions of the FEU Treaty relating to the freedom of movement for persons are intended to facilitate the pursuit by nationals of the Member States of occupational activities of all kinds throughout the European Union and preclude measures which might place nationals of the Member States at a disadvantage when they wish to pursue an economic activity in the territory of another Member State (see, in particular, Case C‑325/08 Olympique Lyonnais  [2010] ECR I‑2177, paragraph 33 and case‑law cited).
30. National provisions which preclude or deter a national of a Member State from leaving his country of origin in order to exercise his right to freedom of movement therefore constitute restrictions on that freedom, even if they apply without regard to the nationality of the workers concerned (see Olympique Lyonnais , paragraph 34).
31. It must be held that national legislation such as that in the main proceedings, which makes the grant of debt relief subject to a condition of residence, is capable of dissuading an insolvent worker, whose indebtedness is such that that he cannot be presumed to have the means to pay his or her debts within a foreseeable period, from exercising his right to freedom of movement. He will be dissuaded from leaving his Member State of origin to go and work in another Member State if by doing so he is denied the possibility of obtaining debt relief in that Member State of origin.
33. A measure which constitutes an obstacle to freedom of movement for workers can be accepted only if it pursues a legitimate aim compatible with the Treaty and is justified by overriding reasons in the public interest. Even if that were so, application of that measure would still have to be such as to ensure achievement of the objective in question and not go beyond what is necessary for that purpose (see Olympique Lyonnais , paragraph 38).
46. In that regard, it is legitimate for a Member State to wish to monitor the debtor’s financial and personal situation before adopting a measure in his favour which would relieve him of all or part of his debts (see, by analogy, Case C‑406/04 De Cuyper  [2006] ECR I‑6947, paragraph 41).
47. However, at the hearing, the Swedish Government conceded that a debtor resident in Sweden when the application for debt relief is made but who, having been granted such relief, decides to go and work and reside in another Member State, while remaining registered in the population register in Sweden, continues to receive debt relief. Consequently, the setting of a residence criterion such as that used in the main proceedings, based solely on the date on which the application for the grant of debt relief is submitted, is not a condition linked to the effectiveness of the KFM checks (see, to that effect, Case C‑192/05 Tas-Hagen and Tas  [2006] ECR I‑10451, paragraph 39). Residence in another Member State does not seem to preclude the monitoring which is required after the grant of such a debt relief measure.