1 BY DECISION OF 3 JUNE 1983 , WHICH WAS RECEIVED AT THE COURT ON 21 OCTOBER 1983 , THE COMMISSION DE PREMIERE INSTANCE DU CONTENTIEUX DE LA SECURITE SOCIALE ET DE LA MUTUALITE SOCIALE AGRICOLE , PARIS , REFERRED TO THE COURT FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY A QUESTION RELATING TO THE INTERPRETATION OF COMMUNITY LAW , AND IN PARTICULAR OF ARTICLE 48 OF THE EEC TREATY , IN ORDER TO ENABLE IT TO DECIDE AS TO THE PAYMENT OF FAMILY ALLOWANCES IN RESPECT OF A CHILD ATTENDING SCHOOL IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE .
2 THAT QUESTION WAS RAISED IN THE CONTEXT OF PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN THE CAISSE D ' ALLOCATIONS FAMILIALES DE LA REGION PARISIENNE ( FAMILY ALLOWANCES FUND FOR THE PARIS REGION , HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ' ' THE FUND ' ' ) AND RICHARD MEADE , A UNITED STATES NATIONAL ESTABLISHED IN PARIS , WHERE HE IS SELF-EMPLOYED , AND HIS WIFE , A BRITISH NATIONAL . THE DISPUTE CONCERNS THE WITHDRAWAL OF FAMILY ALLOWANCES IN RESPECT OF THE MEADES ' TWO SONS , BOTH BRITISH NATIONALS , AND THE REPAYMENT OF SUMS ALREADY PAID .
3 UNTIL 1980 , THE MEADES RECEIVED FAMILY ALLOWANCES IN RESPECT OF THEIR TWO SONS PURSUANT TO THE RELEVANT FRENCH PROVISIONS UNDER WHICH SUCH ALLOWANCES ARE PAYABLE ' ' AS FROM THE SECOND DEPENDENT CHILD RESIDING IN FRANCE ' ' . IN 1980 , THE FUND LEARNED THAT , SINCE 1978 , ONE OF THE MEADES ' TWO SONS HAD BEEN ATTENDING SCHOOL IN ENGLAND . SINCE THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE FRENCH PROVISIONS ALLOW ENTITLEMENT TO FAMILY ALLOWANCES TO BE RETAINED IN THE CASE OF A CHILD STUDYING ABROAD HAD NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH , THE FUND SUSPENDED PAYMENT OF THOSE BENEFITS AND CLAIMED REPAYMENT FROM THE MEADES OF THE ALLOWANCES WRONGLY PAID TO THEM .
4 MR AND MRS MEADE , RELYING UPON THE PRINCIPLE OF FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR PERSONS AND , IN PARTICULAR , ON ARTICLE 48 OF THE EEC TREATY , APPEALED TO THE COMMISSION DE PREMIERE INSTANCE DU CONTENTIEUX DE LA SECURITE SOCIALE ET DE LA MUTUALITE SOCIALE AGRICOLE , PARIS , WHICH CONSIDERED IT NECESSARY TO REFER THE FOLLOWING QUESTION TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING : ' ' IS THE CAISSE D ' ALLOCATIONS FAMILIALES ENTITLED , ON THE BASIS OF ARTICLE 48 OF THE EEC TREATY , TO DEMAND REPAYMENT OF THE FAMILY ALLOWANCES PAID TO THE PARENTS OF A YOUNG MAN OF BRITISH NATIONALITY ON THE GROUND THAT HE IS PURSUING HIS STUDIES IN ENGLAND AND TO SUSPEND PAYMENT OF THE SAID ALLOWANCES ON THE SAME GROUND? ' '
5 THAT QUESTION SEEKS ESSENTIALLY TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF COMMUNITY LAW , AND IN PARTICULAR ARTICLE 48 OF THE TREATY , PREVENT THE WITHDRAWAL OF FAMILY ALLOWANCES ON THE GROUND THAT A CHILD IS ATTENDING SCHOOL IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE .
6 FAMILY ALLOWANCES ARE ONE OF THE BENEFITS GOVERNED BY REGULATION NO 1408/71 OF THE COUNCIL OF 14 JUNE 1971 ON THE APPLICATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY SCHEMES TO EMPLOYED PERSONS AND THEIR FAMILIES MOVING WITHIN THE COMMUNITY , WHICH , AT THE TIME OF THE EVENTS REFERRED TO BY THE QUESTION FROM THE NATIONAL TRIBUNAL , HAD NOT BEEN EXTENDED TO SELF-EMPLOYED PERSONS BY COUNCIL REGULATION NO 1390/81 OF 12 MAY 1981 . SINCE THE PURPOSE OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 WAS TO ADOPT , IN THE FIELD OF SOCIAL SECURITY , THE MEASURES NECESSARY , IN CONFORMITY WITH ARTICLE 51 OF THE TREATY , TO ESTABLISH FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR WORKERS AS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 48 OF THE TREATY , 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 .