Grzelczyk v. Centre Public D'Aide Sociale D'Ottignies-Louvain-LaNeuve (Case C-184/99) Before the Court of Justice of the European Communities ECJ (Presiding, RodrÍguez Iglesias, P.; Gulmann, Wathelet and Skouris PP.C. ; Edward ( Rapporteur), Jann, Sevón, Schintgen ( Rapporteur) and Macken JJ.) Siegbert Alber, Advocate General. 20 September 2001 H1 Reference from Belgium by the Tribunal du travail de Nivelles (Industrial Tribunal, Nivelles) under Article 234 EC. H2 Social security--non-contributory benefits--students--nationality-- discrimination--EU citizenship--right of residence--student national of one Member State refused minimum subsistence allowance by national authorities of host Member State where pursuing university studies--national legislation permitting payments to nationals of other Member States only if worker under Regulation 1612/68--no such condition applicable to nationals of host Member State--national law precluded by Articles 6 and 8 (now Articles 12 and 17 EC)-- limitations to rights of movement and residence contained in Directive 93/96 not precluding students from applying for social assistance in host Member State-judgments--temporal effects--request to restrict application of Court's judgment in time refused. H3 Under Belgian law, Belgian nationals were entitled, where necessary, to a minimum subsistence allowance (the "minimex"). In addition, this allowance was available to all others to whom Regulation 1612/68on the freedom of movement for workers within the Community was applicable. G, a French national, began a course of university studies at a Belgian university. At the beginning of his final year of study G applied to authorities for payment of the minimex. This was eventually stopped on the grounds that G's student status prevented him from being regarded as a worker and he was not, therefore, covered by Regulation 1612/68. G challenged this decision before the national tribunal, which requested a preliminary ruling, inter alia, as to whether it was contrary to the principles of European *544 citizenship and of non-discrimination enshrined in Articles 6 and 8 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 12 and 17 EC) for the minimex to be granted only to nationals of the Member States to whom Regulation 1612/68 applied and not to all citizens of the Union. Held:

National system for award of minimum subsistence payment to students from other Member States contrary to Articles 6 and 8 of the EC Treaty. H4 (a) A student of Belgian nationality, though not a worker covered by Regulation 1612/68, would have received the minimex if he had been in the same circumstances as G. The case was therefore one of discrimination solely on the ground of nationality, which was, in principle, prohibited by Article 6. In a case such as this, Article 6 was to be read in conjunction with the provisions of the Treaty concerning citizenship of the European Union. A citizen of the Union, lawfully resident in a Member State, could rely on Article 6 in situations falling within the scope of Community law. Such situations included those involving the exercise of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty and those involving the exercise of the right to move and reside freely in another Member State. [29]-[33] MartÍnez Sala v. Freistaat Bayern (C-85/96): [1998] E.C.R. I-2691; Criminal proceedings against Bickel and Another (C-274/96): [1998] E.C.R. I-7637; [1999] 1 C.M.L.R. 348, followed. H5 (b) Previously, the Court had held that assistance given to students fell outside the scope of the EEC Treaty. However, since then, the Treaty on European Union had introduced citizenship of the Union into the EC Treaty and added provisions concerning education and vocational training. Furthermore, the Council had adopted Directive 93/96, requiring Member States to grant rights of residence to student nationals of another Member State where those students satisfied certain requirements. The fact that a Union citizen pursued university studies in a Member State in which he was not a national could not deprive him of the possibility of relying on Article 6. [34]-[36] Brown v. Secretary of State for Scotland (197/86): [1988] E.C.R. 3205; [1988] 3 C.M.L.R. 403, overruled. H6 (c) The prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality was to be read in conjunction with the right to move and reside freely within Member States provided by Article 8a(1)of the EC Treaty (now Article 17a(1) EC ). This right was, however, subject to limitations such as those contained in Article 1 of Directive 93/96. That provision permitted Member States to require students from other Member States to satisfy the relevant national authority that they would not burden the social assistance system of the host Member State. [37]-[42] EC Commission v. Italy (C-424/98): [2000] E.C.R. I-4001, followed. *545 H7 (d) Article 4 of Directive 93/96 provided that, in such a case, the right of residence was to exist for as long as the beneficiary of the right satisfied the conditions contained in Article 1. Nevertheless, a Member State could not withdraw a student's residence permit automatically if the student had recourse to the host Member State's social assistance system. The sixth recital in the directive's preamble stated that beneficiaries of the right of residence must not become an "unreasonable burden" on the finances of the host State. A degree of financial solidarity between nationals of different Member States was thus accepted, particularly where the difficulties encountered by the beneficiary of the right of residence were temporary. [43]-[45] H8 (e) Accordingly, Articles 6 and 8 of the Treaty precluded a system of entitlement to a non-contributory benefit, such as the minimex, under which nationals from Member States other than the host State qualified for the benefit only where they fell within the scope of Regulation 1612/68. [46] Effects of the judgment not to be limited in time H9 The Belgian government had asked the Court to limit the temporal effects of the judgment if it were to find that a person such as G was entitled to receive the minimex. The Court had, however, held repeatedly that the interpretation which it gave to Community law defined the meaning of that law as it should have been applied from the

time of its entry into force. Only exceptionally, in applying the general principle of legal certainty, would the Court restrict reliance on its interpretation of a provision with a view to avoiding calling into question legal relationships established in good faith. In the present case, the Belgian government had produced no evidence to show that any objective and significant uncertainty regarding the implications of the Treaty provisions concerning citizenship of the Union had led its national authorities to adopt practices which did not comply with these provisions. Accordingly, there were no grounds for limiting the effects of the judgment in time. [48]-[55] FG Roders BV and Others v. Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen (C 367-377/93): [1995] E.C.R. I-2229; EC Commission v. France (C-35/97): [1998] E.C.R. I-5325; Buchner and Others v. Socialversicherungsanstalt der Bauern (C-104/98): [2000] E.C.R. I-3625, followed. H10 Representation B. Liétar, avocat, for the Centre public d'aide sociale d'Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve. A. Snoecx, acting as Agent, C. Doutrelepont and M. Uyttendaele, avocat, for the Belgian Government. J. Molde, acting as Agent, for the Danish Government. K. Rispal-Bellanger and C. Bergeot, acting as Agents, for the French Government. L. Fernandes and A.C. Pedroso, acting as Agents, for the Portuguese Government. *546 R. Magrill, acting as Agent, P. Salesand J. Coppel, Barristers, for the U.K. Government. E. Karlsson and F. Anton, acting as Agents, for the EU Council. P. van Nuffel, acting as Agent, for the EC Commission. H11 Cases referred to in the judgment: 1. European Parliament v. EC Council (C-295/90), 7 July 1992: [1992] E.C.R. I-4193; [1992] 3 C.M.L.R. 281. 2. MartÍnez Sala v. Freistaat Bayern (C-85/96), 12 May 1998: [1998] E.C.R. I-2691. 3. Hoeckx v. Openbaar Centrum voor Maatschappelijk Welzijn, Kalmthout (249/83), 27 March 1985: [1985] E.C.R. 973; [1987] 3 C.M.L.R. 638. 4. EC Commission v. Belgium (C-326/90), 10 November 1992: [1992] E.C.R. I-5517. 5. Criminal proceedings against Bickel and Another (C-274/96) , 24 November 1998: [1998] E.C.R. I-7637; [1999] 1 C.M.L.R. 348 . 6. Brown v. Secretary of State for Scotland (197/86), 21 June 1988: [1988] E.C.R. 3205; [1988] 3 C.M.L.R. 403. 7. EC Commission v. Italy (C-424/98), 25 May 2000: [2000] E.C.R. I-4001. 8. FG Roders BV and Others v. Inspecteur der Invoerrechten en Accijnzen (C 367377/93), 11 August 1995: [1995] E.C.R. I-2229. 9. EC Commission v. France (C-35/97), 24 September 1998: [1998] E.C.R. I-5325. 10. Buchner and Others v. Socialversicherungsanstalt der Bauern (C-104/98), 23 May 2000 : [2000] E.C.R. I-3625. H12 Further cases referred to by the Advocate General: 11. Scrivner v. Centre public d'aide Sociale de Chastre (122/84) , 27 March 1985: [1985] E.C.R. 1027; [1987] 3 C.M.L.R. 638. 12. Raulin v. Minister van Onderwijs en Wetenschappen (C-357/89) , 26 February 1992: [1992] E.C.R. I-1027; [1994] 1 C.M.L.R. 227 . 13. Lair v. Universität Hannover (39/86), 21 June 1988: [1988] E.C.R. 3161; [1989] 3 C.M.L.R. 454.

14. Gravier v. City of Liège (293/83), 13 February 1985: [1985] E.C.R. 593; [1985] 3 C.M.L.R. 1. 15. Blaizot v. University of Liège and Others (24/86), 2 February 1988: [1988] E.C.R. 379; [1989] 1 C.M.L.R. 57. 16. Lawrie-Blum v. Land Baden-Württemberg (66/85), 3 July 1986: [1986] E.C.R. 2121; [1987] 3 C.M.L.R. 389. 17. Levin v. Staatssecretaris van Justitie (53/81), 23 March 1982: [1982] E.C.R. 1035; [1982] 2 C.M.L.R. 454. 18. Kempf v. Staatssecretaris van Justitie (139/85), 3 June 1986: [1986] E.C.R. 1741; [1987] 1 C.M.L.R. 764. *547 19. Bernini v. Minister van Onderwijs en Wetenschappen (C-3/90) , 26 February 1992: [1992] E.C.R. I-1071. 20. C.P.M. Meeusen v. Hoofddirectie van de Informatie Beheer Groep (C-337/97), 8 June 1999: [1999] E.C.R. I-3289; [2000] 2 C.M.L.R. 659 . 21. Decker v. Caisse de Maladie des Employés Privés (C-120/95), 28 April 1998: [1998] E.C.R. I-1831 ; [1998] 2 C.M.L.R. 879. 22. Kohll v. Union des Caisses de Maladie (C-158/96), 28 April 1998: [1998] E.C.R. I1931; [1998] 2 C.M.L.R. 928. 23. Cowan v. Trésor Public (186/87), 2 February 1989: [1989] E.C.R. 195; [1990] 2 C.M.L.R. 613. 24. Belgium v. Humbel and Another (263/86), 27 September 1988: [1988] E.C.R. 5365; [1989] 1 C.M.L.R. 393. Opinion of Advocate General Alber Introduction A1 This reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du Travail (Labour Court), Nivelles (hereinafter "the referring court"), concerns the question whether a non-Belgian Community national who studies in Belgium may rely on Community law, in particular the provisions on citizenship of the Union and the principle of equal treatment, in order to claim the minimum means of subsistence guaranteed by Belgian law. Facts and procedure A2 The plaintiff in the main proceedings (hereinafter "the plaintiff") is a French national. He was born on 9 December 1974. He lived in France until the end of his secondary education. He then began studying physical education at the Catholic University of Louvain (Louvain-la-Neuve) and has since lived in the Belgian municipality of OttigniesLouvain-la-Neuve. A3 During the first three years of his studies, he met the costs of his upkeep, accommodation and studies by taking on various jobs and by arranging for credit facilities to cover the costs of his studies. At the beginning of his fourth and final year of study, during which he did not work to finance his studies, he applied to the OttigniesLouvain-la-Neuve Centre public d'aide sociale (Public Social Assistance Agency), the defendant in the main proceedings (hereinafter "the CPAS" or "the defendant"), for payment of the minimum means of subsistence ("the minimex"). He stated that his parents, who lived in France, were unable to assume the cost of his studies, since his father was unemployed and his mother was seriously ill. A4 In her report, the CPAS social worker noted that the plaintiff had worked hard to

finance his studies, but that, since the last academic *548 year was more taxing than the others--he had to write a dissertation and complete a period of practical training--he had applied for benefit from the CPAS. A5 By decision of 16 October 1998, the CPAS granted the plaintiff the "minimex" for the period from 5 October 1998 to 30 June 1999. A6 By decision of 29 January 1999, the CPAS withdrew his entitlement with effect from 1 January 1999, on the ground that "the person concerned was an EEC national enrolled as a student". The plaintiff instituted legal proceedings challenging that decision. A7 The defendant, the governments of Belgium, Denmark, France, Portugal and the United Kingdom, the Council and the Commission have taken part in the procedure before the Court. I shall return later to the pleas in law and arguments of the parties. Relevant legislation The Community provisions (a) EC Treaty A8 The first paragraph of Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, the first paragraph of Article 12 EC) provides: Within the scope of application of this Treaty, and without prejudice to any special provisions contained therein, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited. A9 Article 8 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 17 EC) reads: (1) Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. (2) Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights conferred by this Treaty and shall be subject to the duties imposed thereby. A10 Article 8a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 18 EC) states: 1. Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in this Treaty and by the measures adopted to give it effect. 2. ... A11 The following are also relevant to this case: (b) Regulation 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community [FN1] (hereinafter "Regulation 1612/68"); (c) Council Directive 93/96 on the right of residence for students [FN2] (hereinafter "Directive 93/96"). *549 FN1 [1968] O.J. Spec. Ed. p. 475. FN2 [1993] O.J. L317/59. The Belgian domestic legislation (a) The Law of 7 August 1974 A12 Article 1 of the Law of 7 August 1974 introducing entitlement to the "minimex" provides: (1) Any Belgian having reached the age of majority, who is actually resident in Belgium and who does not have adequate resources and is not able to obtain them either by his

own efforts or by other means, shall be entitled to a minimum means of subsistence. The King shall determine the meaning of the words "actually resident". The same entitlement is granted to minors treated as being of full age on account of marriage, and also to single persons who are responsible for one or more children. (2) The King may, by decree deliberated by the Council of Ministers, extend the application of this law, subject to such conditions as he shall set, to other categories of minors, and also to persons not possessing Belgian nationality. (b) The Royal Decree of 27 March 1987 A13 Under Belgian law, the right conferred by that provision constitutes an entitlement to a guaranteed income under a non-contributory social security system. A14 Article 1 of the Royal Decree of 27 March 1987, which extends the scope of the Law of 7 August 1974 introducing entitlement to the "minimex" to persons not possessing Belgian nationality, provides that: The scope of the Law of 7 August 1974 establishing a right to a minimum means of subsistence shall be extended to the following persons: (i) those to whom Regulation (EEC) No. 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community applies; (ii) (iii) .... (c) The Royal Decree of 8 October 1981 A15 Article 55(1) of the Royal Decree of 8 October 1981 implementing the Law of 15 December 1980 on foreigners' entry into, residence and establishment in, and expulsion from Belgian territory provides, in essence, that: A16 A Community national who comes to Belgium to study is entitled to reside there for more than three months provided that: 1. he is enrolled in an educational establishment organised, recognised or subsidised by the public authorities for the primary purpose of following a vocational training course there; 2. he gives an assurance, by means of a declaration or such other means as he may choose, that he has sufficient resources to avoid becoming a burden on the public authorities; *550 3. he is covered by health insurance in respect of all risks in Belgium. A17 The first sentence of Article 55(3) states, in essence, that: Within three months following the application for a residence permit, the Community national must prove that he fulfils the conditions listed in paragraph 1. A18 Article 55(4) provides, in essence, that: The residence permit issued to a national of a Member State of the European Communities is valid for the duration of his training, but may not exceed one year. It is renewable for the same period provided that the Community national continues to satisfy the conditions contained in paragraph 1. During the period of validity of the residence permit or upon its renewal, the Minister or his representative may terminate the residence of a Community national and, if appropriate, order him to leave the country, if he finds that: 1. The Community national no longer meets the conditions set out in paragraph 1(1) and (3); 2. The Community national (or a member of his family ...) has been granted financial assistance by a CPAS the total amount of which, calculated over a period of 12 months

preceding the month in which the order to terminate the residence was made, is more than three times the monthly amount of the guaranteed minimum means of subsistence (calculated in accordance with the Law of 7 August 1974 ...), and the assistance has not been not paid back within six months of the last monthly instalment thereof. The reference for a preliminary ruling A19 The referring court is uncertain whether the aforementioned national provisions are compatible with Community law, in particular Articles 6 and 8 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC and 17 EC), in so far as the latter establish the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality, citizenship of the Union and recognition of the rights conferred by the Treaty on citizens of the Union. A20 The referring court proceeds from the following premises: -- in its judgments in Case 249/83, Hoeckx v. Openbaar Centrum voor Maatschapelijk Welzijn, Kalmthout [FN3] and Case 122/84, Scrivner v. Centre public d'aide Sociale de Chastre, [FN4] the Court held that the Belgian "minimex" constitutes a "social advantage" within the meaning of Council Regulation 1612/68 [FN5] from which a migrant worker who is a national of another Member State residing in the territory of the State paying the benefit may not be excluded; -- on the entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty, the rights recognised under the Treaty were extended to all citizens of *551 the European Union and were no longer confined to "workers" only; -- in its judgment in Case C-85/96, MartÍnez Sala v. Freistaat Bayern , [FN6]the Court of Justice held, inter alia, that a citizen of the Union lawfully resident in the territory of a host Member State can rely on Article 6 of the Treaty in all situations which fall within the scope ratione materiae of Community law. FN3 [1985] E.C.R. 973; [1987] 3 C.M.L.R. 638. FN4 [1985] E.C.R. 1027; [1987] 3 C.M.L.R. 638. FN5 See fn. 1. FN6 [1998] E.C.R. I-2691. A21 The referring court therefore wishes to ascertain whether the principles laid down in Articles 6 and 8 of the EC Treaty are to be interpreted as precluding national legislation which restricts the right to a non-contributory social benefit, such as the "minimex", to nationals of another Member State who are covered by Regulation 1612/68, and as requiring the right to such benefits to be extended to all citizens of the Union. A22 Should those questions be answered in the negative, a further question occurs to the referring court, which it submits to the Court in the alternative. Since the present case concerns a student, reference must be had to Directive 93/96 [FN7] on the right of residence for students. Article 1 of that directive recognises the right of residence for any student who, by means of a declaration or by such alternative means as he may choose that are at least equivalent, provides an assurance that he has sufficient resources to enable him and his family to avoid becoming a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during their period of residence. FN7 See fn. 2.

The questions referred for a preliminary ruling A23 The referring court therefore inquires about a situation such as that in this case, where, after he has been recognised as having a right of residence, it becomes apparent that, contrary to this declaration, the student is not able to meet the costs of his upkeep. Do the provisions of Community law allow a student whose right of residence has been recognised to be excluded subsequently from entitlement to a non-contributory social benefit such as the "minimex" payable by the host State? If so, the referring court submits, it must also be ascertained whether the same provisions are to be interpreted as meaning that that exclusion is of a general and definitive nature, that is to say that the entitlement in question could not be recognised in any circumstances, not even where the person concerned had acted in good faith or where a new factor had emerged or there had been a change in circumstances beyond the control of the student concerned. A24 The referring court submits the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: 1. Does Community law--more particularly the principles of European citizenship and of non-discrimination enshrined in Articles 6 and 8 of *552 the Treaty establishing the European Community--preclude entitlement to a non-contributory social benefit, such as that introduced by the Belgian Law of 7 August 1974 on the minimum means of subsistence, from being granted only to nationals of the Member States to whom Regulation (EEC) No. 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 applies and not to all citizens of the Union? 2. In the alternative, are Articles 6 and 8a of the Treaty and Directive 93/96 of 29 October 1993 on the right of residence for students to be interpreted to the effect that, after a student's right of residence has been acknowledged, they allow him to be subsequently barred from entitlement to non-contributory social benefits, such as the minimum means of subsistence, payable by the host country, and, if so, is that exclusion general and definitive in nature? Pleas in law and arguments of the parties A25 The plaintiff in the main proceedings has not submitted any observations. The defendant A26 In order further to clarify the facts, the defendant points out that, after issuing the notice of entitlement on 16 October 1998, it submitted the file to the relevant ministry in order to recoup the assistance granted. However, the ministry refused to repay the assistance on the ground that, as a European Community student, the plaintiff is not entitled to the "minimex". The defendant then reconsidered its decision and issued the notice of withdrawal of entitlement. At the same time, however, the CPAS granted the plaintiff non-refundable social assistance of BFr 7,000 per month for the period from 1 January 1999 to 30 June 1999, that is to say to the end of his course of study. The CPAS contends that its refusal to grant the "minimex" is based on the position adopted by the Belgian State. A27 On the first question, the defendant takes the view that, as Community law stands at present, Articles 6 and 8 of the EC Treaty cannot be interpreted as meaning that a citizen of the Union may claim such a social benefit. The Belgian rules are therefore consistent with Articles 6 and 8a of the EC Treaty. Article 8a provides that every citizen of the Union has the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States "subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in this Treaty and by the

measures adopted to give it effect". That phrase shows that Article 8a does not have direct effect and that it must be given effect in such a way as to observe the limitations laid down in the Treaty and in secondary legislation. Those limitations include Directives 90/364, [FN8] 90/365 [FN9] and 90/366, [FN10] now *553 Directive 93/96. Those three directives qualified and limited freedom of movement by means of the requirement that a person prove that he has sufficient resources and that he is covered by social insurance. It follows from Article 1 of, and the preamble to, Directive 93/96 that beneficiaries "must not become an unreasonable burden on the public finances of the host Member State". [FN11] Accordingly, persons possessing a "general right of residence" cannot claim the same advantages as migrant workers and their dependants, since the economic quid pro quo offered by a worker is lacking in their case. FN8 Council Directive 90/364 on the right of residence ([1990] O.J. L180/26). FN9 Council Directive 90/365 on the right of residence for employees and self-employed persons who have ceased their occupational activity ([1990] O.J. L180/28). FN10 This directive was annulled by judgment of the Court in Case C-295/90, European Parliament v. EC Council [1992] E.C.R. I-4193; [1992] 3 C.M.L.R. 281and was readopted, on a different legal basis, in the form of Directive 93/96. FN11 See the sixth recital in the preamble to Directive 93/96. A28 As regards the judgment in MartÍnez Sala, [FN12] referred to by the national court, the defendant argues that the circumstances in that case were fundamentally different, so that the principles established there cannot be applied to this case. The plaintiff, who has been residing in Belgium for four years for the sole purpose of pursuing his studies there, does not fall within the scope of the provisions on workers. FN12 Cited in fn. 6 above. A29 On the second question, the defendant takes the view that a student is excluded from non-contributory social benefits throughout the period of his residence in that capacity. The phrase "during his period of residence" in the directive implies for a student, that the condition of sufficient resources applies throughout the entire period of his residence. A30 It is the defendant's submission that the Belgian legislature transposed the directive to that effect by adopting Article 55 of the Royal Decree of 8 October 1981, which allows the competent minister to terminate residence by means of an order to leave the country if one of the conditions of residence ceases to be fulfilled, namely that laid down in Article 55(4)(2), under which a student's right of residence may be withdrawn if he has received over a period of 12 months financial assistance equal to the amount of the "minimex" payable over three months. A31 Finally, the plaintiff declared as late as 21 January 1999 that he had sufficient resources, when in fact he no longer possessed such resources and had applied for assistance from the CPAS. To that extent, the plaintiff acted deceitfully. The Belgian Government A32 In order to further clarify the facts, the Belgian Government submits that the plaintiff did not apply for a residence permit until 25 October 1998 and that the permit was

issued to him on 21 January 1999. Prior to that date, he was therefore residing unlawfully in Belgian territory. Also on 21 January 1999, the plaintiff applied for a certificate of residence as a student and, on that occasion, made a declaration that he had sufficient resources. A33 Moreover, the CPAS did not submit a formal request to the *554 competent ministry for a refund of the benefits paid. There is therefore no written evidence of a refusal to grant the "minimex". A34 The Belgian Government explains that the relevant Belgian provisions mean that a person applying for the "minimex" must prove that he is in a state of need. In that connection, he must, in principle, prove that he is willing to work. He may be exempted from that requirement on grounds of particular circumstances or on health grounds. The fact that an applicant is undertaking a course of study has been recognised by some Belgian courts as constituting particular circumstances. A35 As for the nature of the benefit, the Belgian Government submits that it is a social benefit which is granted only in the last resort. All other sources available under maintenance and social security legislation must have been exhausted first. Only a student who fulfils those conditions is eligible for the benefit. A36 With regard to the reference for a preliminary ruling, the Belgian Government argues that the principle of equal treatment is applicable to facts which fall within the scope of the Treaty. The Court has accordingly held that access to vocational training must be granted without discrimination, but that the position is different as regards maintenance grants. [FN13] Indeed, that finding forms the basis of Directive 93/96. The benefit at issue, however, is an instrument of social policy which bears no relation to vocational training and does not therefore fall within the scope of Article 6 of the EC Treaty. FN13 See Case 197/86, Brown v. Secretary of State for Scotland [1988] E.C.R. 3205; [1988] 3 C.M.L.R. 403, in particular the Opinion of Advocate General Slynn at [1988] E.C.R. 3224, and Case C-357/89 , Raulin v. Minister van Onderwijs en Wetenschappen [1992] E.C.R. I-1027; [1994] 1 C.M.L.R. 227, in particular the Opinion of Advocate General van Gerven at [1992] E.C.R. I-1040. A37 The grant of the "minimex", it contends, is a social advantage which can be granted to a worker but not to a "migrant student", who cannot be regarded as a worker. Furthermore, the right of residence is not an absolute right even under the Maastricht Treaty. It is limited by, and subject to, the provisions of the Treaty and of secondary legislation. The answer to the first question from the referring court must therefore be that the right of residence may lawfully be made subject to conditions, such as the payment of maintenance costs and sickness insurance, which serve the legitimate interests of the Member State. A38 As regards the referring court's second question, the Belgian Government takes the view that the general exclusion of a Community student from access to non-contributory social benefits must apply for the duration of his residence as a student. Article 2 of Directive 93/96 allows the right of residence to be restricted to the duration of the course of study in question. Article 3 of the directive lays down that the directive does not establish any entitlement to the payment of maintenance grants by the host Member State. Under Article 4 of the directive, the right of residence is to remain for as long as the *555 beneficiaries of that right fulful the conditions laid down in Article 1. Conversely, it must be assumed that the right of residence comes to an end if the student becomes a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State. Article 55 of the Royal Decree of 8 October 1981, which transposes the directive into national law,

observes those principles. A39 In the alternative, the Belgian Government argues that a social benefit such as the "minimex" can be granted to a Community student under Regulation 1612/68only in so far as the conditions to which it is subject are fulfilled. The right of residence for students under Directive 93/96is accorded to students who do not already enjoy that right on the basis of another provision of Community law. [FN14] It is for the national court to ascertain whether the plaintiff is a worker within the meaning of Community law. None the less, according to the information available to the Belgian Government, the plaintiff has worked only intermittently as a student. He should therefore probably not be accorded the status of worker. The element of continuity between work and study, as required by the Court in the judgment in Case 39/86, Lair v. Universität Hanover, [FN15] is lacking in this case. The studies in question are not such as to improve the worker's prospects of the employment market in his sector of activity. FN14 See Article 1 of Directive 93/96. FN15 [1988] E.C.R. 3161; [1989] 3 C.M.L.R. 454. A40 Should the Court of Justice find, however, that a student who is a Community national is, in his capacity as such, entitled to social benefits in the same way as students who are nationals of the host State, the Belgian Government asks that the effects of the Court's judgment be limited in time, for reasons of legal certainty and in order not to undermine the system for financing social benefits. A41 The Belgian Government contends, finally, as an entirely subsidiary point, that, ultimately, any right to equal treatment may not go further than the right of a national student to payment of the minimex. A student who is a Community national must at least satisfy the same stringent conditions. The Danish Government A42 The Danish Government takes the view that the "minimex" under Belgian law is a social advantage within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation 1612/68 [FN16] which must be granted to workers without discrimination. The reference for a preliminary ruling does not make it clear, however, whether the plaintiff is a worker. As a student, he cannot claim benefits on the basis of Regulation 1612/68. Neither Article 6 nor Article 8 of the EC Treaty supports a different conclusion and the Treaty of Amsterdam has done nothing to alter that fact. *556 Citizenship of the Union carries no new rights. As is clear from their wording, those provisions have no independent meaning. [FN17]The Danish Government emphasises that it does not share the view expressed by the referring court that the Maastricht Treaty extended the rights provided for in the Treaty to all citizens of the Union. FN16 Article 7(2) provides that a worker who is a national of a Member State is to enjoy, in the territory of another Member State, the same social and tax advantages as national workers. FN17 See the qualification: "... subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in this Treaty and by the measures adopted to give it effect." A43 With regard to the second question, the Danish Government submits that Directive 93/96requires that a student have sufficient resources. Only then does he enjoy a right

of residence. That right lapses when he no longer has sufficient resources. This follows from the sixth recital in the preamble to, and Article 1 of, the directive. Sufficient resources are therefore a condition of the right of residence. A44 Moreover, it is not clear whether the plaintiff is lawfully resident in Belgian territory within the meaning of the judgment in MartÍnez Sala. [FN18] And in any event, the circumstances of this case are otherwise incomparable with those of MartÍnez Sala. FN18 Cited above in fn. 7. A45 Even if the plaintiff falls within the scope ratione materiae of the Treaty, that does not affect payment of the "minimex". In this case, the "minimex" is intended to be paid as a maintenance grant for students, which, in accordance with the case law of the Court, does not fall within the ambit of the principle of equal treatment as regards access to vocational training. Nor does Article 8a of the Treaty change the legal position of students. This follows from the qualification contained in the wording of the provision itself. It does not afford students an independent legal status. It is perfectly consistent with Articles 6 and 8a of the Treaty, and with Directive 93/96, for students to be excluded from the social benefit at issue. The French Government A46 With respect to the first question, the French Government submits that Article 7(2) of Regulation 1612/68 is a specific expression of the principle of equal treatment for migrant workers and their families laid down in Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now Article 39 EC). The question here is whether the principle of equal treatment with regard to social and tax advantages must be extended to all citizens of the Union. That would mean global equality of treatment as between citizens of the Union and Member State nationals. A47 On the other hand, such comprehensive equal treatment is not readily compatible with the rights attached to nationality. Furthermore, the French Government also refers to the reservation contained in Article 8a of the EC Treaty, the substance of which is given concrete expression in Directives 90/364, [FN19]90/365 [FN20] and 93/96 [FN21] *557 on the right of residence. Moreover, Directive 93/96, in the form of Directive 90/366, was annulled by the Court on the ground that it had been adopted on a defective legal basis. [FN22] It was then adopted on the basis of the second paragraph of Article 7a of the EC Treaty (now Article 14(2) EC), which defines the internal market by reference to the provisions of the Treaty. This does not imply absolute equal treatment. In the view of the French Government, the plaintiff in the main proceedings cannot claim equal treatment within the meaning of Regulation 1612/68. FN19 See fn. 8. FN20 See fn. 9. FN21 See fn. 2. FN22 See Case C-295/90 , European Parliament v. EC Council, cited above at fn. 110. A48 The French Government answers the second question by reference to Article 1 of Directive 93/96 , which, it submits, provides for a qualified right of residence as previously established by the judgments in Case 293/83, Gravier v. City of Liège [FN23]

and Case 24/86, Blaizot v. University of Liège and Others [FN24] and Brown. [FN25] However, Community law makes no provision as to how to proceed where the original financial situation of a student in another Member State deteriorates while he is resident there, as is the case in the main proceedings. This is therefore a matter for the Member States to resolve, as indeed the Member State in question did in the circumstances which gave rise to the main proceedings. The right of a student to a non-contributory social benefit cannot be asserted on the basis of Articles 6 and 8 of the EC Treaty and Directive 93/96. FN23 [1985] E.C.R. 593; [1985] 3 C.M.L.R. 1. FN24 [1988] E.C.R. 379; [1989] 1 C.M.L.R. 57. FN25 Case 197/86, cited above at fn. 13. The Portuguese Government A49 The Portuguese Government first of all examines in detail the question whether the grant of the "minimex" under Belgian law constitutes a social advantage within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation 1612/68 and concludes that it does. It then addresses the question whether the plaintiff had the status of worker originally and, if so, whether he has retained it. The correct meaning of "worker" in Community law, it contends, depends on the subject-matter in question. The Portuguese Government uses the term as it was defined in the judgments in Case 66/85, Lawrie-Blum v. Land BadenWürttemberg , [FN26] Lair, [FN27] Raulin [FN28] and MartÍnez Sala. [FN29] FN26 [1986] E.C.R. 2121; [1987] 3 C.M.L.R. 389. FN27 Case 39/86, cited at fn. 15. FN28 Case C-357/89, cited at fn. 13. FN29 Case C-85/96, cited at fn. 6. A50 The Portuguese Government submits that, as it is not absolutely clear whether the plaintiff abandoned his occupational activity altogether in his fourth year of study, it has proceeded from the assumption that he stopped working in order to obtain a vocational qualification. It is true that Community law does not give a clear answer to the question whether the status of worker is retained in such *558 circumstances. There is, however, some evidence which points towards an affirmative answer to that question. The Portuguese Government refers to the judgment in Lair, [FN30] according to which the status of worker is not necessarily linked to the continued existence of an employment relationship. If the plaintiff was a worker for three years, he must retain his status as such, since the contrary situation would constitute unequal treatment in relation to unemployed persons, who, in accordance with Regulation 1612/68, [FN31]are to enjoy the same social advantages as national workers. The judgment in Lairis to be construed to that effect also. FN30 Case 39/86, cited at fn. 15. FN31 The Portuguese government is probably referring to Articles 5 and Article 7(1) and

(2) of Regulation 1612/68. A51 As regards the criterion of continuity between occupational activity and study, the Portuguese Government examines two alternatives: if there is substantive continuity between the two, the plaintiff is entitled to the social advantage at issue. If, on the other hand, no such continuity can be established and the plaintiff has studied in order to acquire a qualification in another sector of activity, he must none the less be regarded as a worker by virtue of the judgment in Lair, which states that the element of continuity is not essential where the worker has involuntarily become unemployed and is obliged by the situation on the job market to undertake occupational retraining. A52 In view of that assessment, further examination of citizenship of the Union is purely academic. The Portuguese Government submits in this respect that, in the EEC Treaty, free movement of persons was established on economic grounds. That right was further developed by the directives on the right of residence. [FN32] The right of residence, it contends, was linked only to certain economic conditions, such as the existence of sufficient financial resources. Under the Maastricht Treaty, the right of residence evolved yet further, and, under Article 8a of the EC Treaty, brought about a qualitative change in the status of citizens of the Union under Community law. Citizenship of the Union took on greater significance, in contrast to the perception of individuals as purely economic factors which had underlain the EC Treaty. The conditions on which freedom of movement may depend are now no longer economic in nature, as they still were in the 1990 directives. [FN33]The only "limitations and conditions" attached to freedom of movement now are those imposed on grounds of public policy, public security and public health. Regulation 1612/68 is therefore applicable to all citizens of the Union residing in the territory of a Member State, whether or not they are bound by a contract of employment. FN32 Directives 90/364 (cited at fn. 8), 90/365 (cited at fn. 9) and 93/96 (cited at fn. 10). FN33 Directives 90/364(cited at fn. 8), 90/365 (cited at fn. 9) and 90/366 (cited at fn. 10). A53 There is therefore no need to answer the second question from the referring court. *559 The United Kingdom Government A54 The United Kingdom Government takes the view that any discrimination against the plaintiff does not pose a problem since it does not fall within the scope of the Treaty. Article 6 of the EC Treaty is subordinate to the specific prohibition of discrimination laid down in Article 48 of the EC Treaty and to the regulation adopted in implementation of that article, Regulation 1612/68. Article 8 of the EC Treaty does not extend the scope of Article 6. Even if Article 6 were to be applied independently, it could not be extended to facts which are excluded from the scope ratione personae of the Treaty. That, moreover, is consistent with the judgment in MartÍnez Sala. [FN34] In that case, the appellant was already entitled to the benefit in question under national law. Article 6 merely permitted her to fulfil the additional requirement of producing a residence permit. It was indisputable that she was lawfully resident in Germany, even though the German authorities failed to issue her with the document she had requested. FN34 Case C-85/96, cited at fn. 6 above. A55 The plaintiff in these proceedings, on the other hand, has no entitlement under

national law to the benefit claimed. Both the CPAS and the referring court have deemed the plaintiff to be a student, not a worker. There is no reason to call that assessment into question. The status of student within the meaning of Directive 93/96 and the status of worker are mutually exclusive and remain so for the entire duration of the training. A part-time job to finance study is not capable of establishing a person's status as a worker. In such circumstances, the occupational activity is purely ancillary to the studies. Its irregularity and limited duration make it difficult to regard the occupational activity in question as "effective and genuine" within the meaning of case law. [FN35] FN35 See Case C-357/89, cited at fn. 13, para. [14]. A56 The right of residence for a student under Directive 93/96 is, in accordance with Article 1 thereof, subject to conditions, such as, for example, the requirement to have sufficient resources to finance his studies. A student who has to work in order to finance his studies by definition does not have sufficient resources. In any event, the plaintiff lost his status of worker once he ceased his employment and applied for the "minimex". In concluding its examination of the first question, the UK Government points out that assistance granted to students likewise does not fall within the scope of the Treaty, by virtue of both the case law of the Court [FN36]and Directive 93/96, [FN37]and-- without reaching a final conclusion as to the nature of the "minimex"--it submits that the plaintiff has no claim to equal treatment on that ground either. FN36 See Case 39/86, cited at fn. 15, and Case 197/86, cited at fn. 13. FN37 See the seventh recital in the preamble to the directive. A57 In answering the second question, the UK Government points out *560 that the wording and meaning of Directive 93/96 [FN38]expressly show that a student has no entitlement to maintenance allowances. In the view of the United Kingdom Government, Article 8a of the EC Treaty is not capable of creating for students an independent right of residence the limits of which go beyond those laid down in Directive 93/96. Even if Article 8aof the EC Treaty did support an independent right of residence, however, an entitlement to social benefits could not accrue on that basis alone. Moreover, Article 8a of the EC Treaty is not directly applicable. The right of residence is subject to a reservation and the Council may, under Article 8a(2), adopt provisions with a view to facilitating the exercise of the rights referred to in paragraph 1. FN38 See Article 3of, and the seventh recital in the preamble to, the directive. The Council A58 In its brief written observations, the Council submits that the benefit sought by the plaintiff cannot be claimed under Regulation 1612/68. That regulation applies exclusively to workers. The plaintiff, however, is a student. Moreover, there is no reason to call into question the validity of Regulation 1612/68. The Commission A59 In its submissions, the Commission proceeds from the premise that the plaintiff would have received the benefit claimed if he had been a Belgian national. The application of the principle of equal treatment under Article 6 therefore depends on

whether the contested benefit falls within the scope of the Treaty. There is no doubt that it falls within the scope ratione materiae of the Treaty, since it is a social advantage within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation 1612/68. As regards the scope ratione personae of the Treaty, it is necessary first of all to examine the specific areas in which Community law applies, such as freedom of movement for workers and students' rights, before the general provisions on European citizenship can be considered. A60 Even though it is ultimately a matter for the referring court to decide whether the plaintiff was a worker, the Commission proceeds on the assumption that, on the basis of the criteria established by the case law of the Court, [FN39] the plaintiff must be regarded as a worker within the meaning of Community law. An occupational activity which for three years enabled the plaintiff to pay for his accommodation, upkeep and studies can hardly be regarded as "purely marginal and ancillary" within the meaning of the judgment in Levin. [FN40] Even if the *561 occupational activity is interrupted for the purposes of study, the status of worker may still be retained; indeed it can even take precedence over the right of residence as a student. FN39 See Case 53/81, Levin v. Staatssecretaris van Justitie: [1982] E.C.R. 1035; [1982] 2 C.M.L.R. 454, paras [16], [17] & [21]; Case 139/85, Kempf v. Staatssecretaris van Justitie [1986] E.C.R. 1741, para. [14]; Raulin, cited at fn. 12 above, para. [10]; and Lair, cited at fn. 14 above, paras [29] et seq. FN40 Case 53/81, cited at fn. 4, para. [16]. A61 As regards the rights attached to the status of student, the Commission submits that the right of residence as a student does not necessarily carry with it any other rights, such as entitlement to social benefits. As defined by the case law of the Court, the right of residence for students is the expression of the principle of equal treatment in the context of access to vocational training. However, it does not seem entirely out of the question that a student in the plaintiff's situation should have at least partial access to "minimex" benefits. The case law of the Court states that, in principle, students from another Member State are to have access to assistance accorded to national students in so far as the assistance granted is intended to cover enrolment fees and other costs of access to the course. [FN41]In that context, partial entitlement to the "minimex" is conceivable. FN41 See Raulin , cited at fn. 13 above, para. [28]. A62 The Commission submits that Article 8 of the EC Treaty is not directly applicable since it refers to rights "conferred by this Treaty". It does not in itself confer entitlement to social benefits. However, nor does any such right accrue even when Article 8 is read in conjunction with Article 8a or Article 6 of the EC Treaty. Article 8a of the EC Treaty grants a right of residence which is in itself subject to the condition of possession of sufficient resources. Assessment A63 Even though the referring court expressly requests only an interpretation of Articles 6 and 8 of the EC Treaty and, in the alternative, of Article 8a of the EC Treaty and Directive 93/96, in referring to citizenship of the Union and the plaintiff's status as a student, it is nonetheless appropriate to examine whether the plaintiff has the status of worker. It is true that the referring court has implicitly proceeded from the assumption

that the plaintiff is not a worker. However, it is not clear whether it has deliberately ruled out that possibility. A64 For reasons of organisation, it is appropriate to consider first whether the plaintiff has the legal status of worker, since residence by reason of paid employment and the attached rights and obligations involve a special set of rules as distinct from the general right of residence for citizens of the Union under Article 8a of the EC Treaty. There is also a special set of rules governing the right of residence for students referred to in the second question. This follows expressly from Article 1 of Directive 93/96, which states that the right of residence is to be recognised for any student who is a national of a Member State and "who does not enjoy that right under other provisions of Community law". *562 The status of worker A65 Ultimately, it will be for the referring court to decide whether or not the plaintiff has the status of worker. It is nonetheless necessary to mention here the relevant criteria for making that assessment. The meaning of "worker" in Community law varies according to the legal area in question. The criteria for determining its meaning in a case involving the freedom of movement for workers guaranteed by the Treaty are different from those that would apply in the field of social security, for example. The present case concerns freedom of movement, since the legal positions established by Regulation 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers may be at issue. A66 The Court has consistently held [FN42] that freedom of movement for workers forms one of the foundations of the Community. The provisions laying down that fundamental freedom and, more particularly, the terms "worker" and "activity as an employed person" defining the sphere of application of those freedoms must be given a broad interpretation in that regard. [FN43] In order to be classified as a worker, a person must pursue an activity which is effective and genuine to the exclusion of activities on such a small scale as to be regarded as purely marginal and ancillary. The essential characteristic of the employment relationship is that for a certain period a person performs services for and under the direction of another person in return for which he receives remuneration. [FN44] FN42 See Case 139/85, Kempf, cited at fn. 39, and Case C-3/90 , Bernini v. Minister van Onderwijs en Wetenschappen: [1992] E.C.R. I-1071. FN43 See Kempf, cited at fn. 39, para. [13] . FN44 See Lawrie-Blum, cited at fn. 26 above, para. 17, and Bernini, cited at fn. 42 above, para. [14]. A67 Despite a written question from the Court, it has not been possible to clarify what the nature, duration and regularity of the plaintiff's activities actually were. However, we know from the CPAS report cited in the order for reference that the plaintiff "worked very hard". It can at least be inferred from this that, for three years, he financed all his own living expenses, that is to say food, clothing, accommodation and studies. As regards the costs of his studies, the referring court stated that the plaintiff obtained credit facilities. The agent for the Belgian Government explained at the hearing that tuition fees (the "minerval") in Belgium are generally reduced for disadvantaged students. The fact remains, however, that, even if the normal tuition fees were reduced, funds still had to be found for the studies themselves. In view of the fact that the plaintiff defrayed all those

costs by his own efforts, using the income from his occupational activity, there is some prima facie evidence in support of the proposition that he has the status of worker. A68 The Belgian Government pointed out that the plaintiff undertook a number of "student jobs" (petits travaux d'étudiant). Student work, the Belgian Government submits, is one of a number of special *563 employment relationships under Belgian law which are not to be regarded as normal employment relationships. It did not specify which jobs are covered by such special relationships. A69 The question is therefore whether the plaintiff's status as a worker may be precluded by the fact that his work fell within that special legal framework. The statutory regulation of short-term employment relationships is not unique to Belgium. Such rules can also be found in the legal systems of other Member States. The national legislature thus satisfies an economic need, on the one hand, and serves the interests of people who are prepared to work reduced hours, on the other. A common feature of such employment relationships, which are defined and limited by law, is that they take account of the special position, in terms of insurance and, in some cases, taxation, in which potential employees find themselves. This can apply to both students and spouses. Both those groups are, for example, normally insured against sickness. A characteristic of the kind of "minor employment relationship" described above may therefore be partial exemption from the obligation to provide social insurance. A70 The social insurance aspect of student employment regulated by law in Belgium does not form part of the subject-matter of these proceedings. It is to that extent unclear whether and, if so, what social insurance provision was made. It must be stated, however, that the obligation to provide social insurance is not a decisive criterion for or against the plaintiff's status as a worker, since this case concerns the status of worker in the context of freedom of movement and not the meaning of "worker" in the context of Regulation 1408/71. [FN45] Consequently, the fact that, as the Belgian Government observes, the plaintiff did in any event undertake "student jobs" regulated by law cannot preclude his having the status of worker. The deciding factor is that, for a certain period, he performed for and under the direction of another person services in return for which he received remuneration and which do not appear to have been "purely marginal and ancillary". [FN46] FN45 Council Regulation 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version contained in Council Regulation 118/97 of 2 December 1996 ([1997] O.J. L28/1). FN46 See Bernini, cited at fn. 42, para. [14]. A71 An activity or a succession of individual employment relationships which enable a worker to support himself without external assistance for a period of three years cannot under any circumstances be regarded as "purely marginal and ancillary". A72 In a different context, the Court has recognised or deemed it possible that a person may have the status of worker [FN47] in cases where there was no long-term full-time employment relationship. In Levin, [FN48] *564 for example, the Court, in assessing whether the activity in question was effective and genuine, recognised part-time employment as establishing a person's status as a worker, even though the objection had been raised in the proceedings that the income from that employment was less than the minimum guaranteed income in the sector concerned. [FN49] FN47 The task of classifying the activity in each particular case having been left to the

referring court. FN48 Case 53/81, Levin, cited at fn. 29 above, para. [16]. FN49 See Levin, cited above at fn. 39, para. [16]. A73 Similarly, for the purpose of determining whether a particular activity was effective and genuine, the Court did not at any rate rule out the possibility, in Kempf, [FN50] that part-time work of 12 hours a week as a music teacher, [FN51] and, in Meeusen, [FN52] that two hours' employment a week, could establish a person's status as a worker. In Brown, [FN53] the Court held that "pre-university vocational training" of approximately eight months was sufficient to confer on the person in question the status of worker. [FN54] FN50 Case 139/85, cited above at fn. 39. FN51 Ultimately, the question did not need to be answered, since the referring court, the Raad van State, had proceeded from the premise that the paid employment in question was on a sufficiently large scale (para. 12). FN52 Case C-337/97, C.P.M. Meeusen v. Hoofdirectie van de Informatie Beheer Groep: [1999] E.C.R. I-3289; [2000] 2 C.M.L.R. 659, paras [7] and [13] et seq. FN53 Case 197/86, cited at fn. 13. FN54 See Brown, cited at fn. 13, para. [23]. A74 In the Raulin case, [FN55] in which the applicant had worked 60 hours over a period of at least two weeks under an "on-call" contract of employment, [FN56] the Court left to the national court [FN57] the final decision as to whether or not the person concerned had the status of worker. In any event, the "on-call" contract was not in principle a bar to her being recognised as such. [FN58] Finally, in Bernini, [FN59] the Court readily accepted that a 10- week training course was sufficient to establish a person's status of worker. [FN60] FN55 Case C-357/89, cited at fn. 13. FN56 An "oproepcontract". FN57 See Raulin, cited at fn. 13, para. [14]. FN58 See Raulin, cited at fn. 13 above, para. [11] . FN59 Case C-3/90, cited at fn. 42 above. FN60 See Bernini, cited at fn. 42, para. [17]. A75 Against that background, the plaintiff can, on the face of it, be considered to fulfil the objective conditions for establishing the status of worker. I shall come back later to the possible consequences of the end of the employment relationship or the voluntary cessation of work.

A76 It must now be examined whether a person in the plaintiff's situation also enjoys a right of residence in his capacity as a student. The right of residence as a student A77 It is common ground that the plaintiff resides in Belgian territory in order, inter alia, or rather primarily, to study physical education there at the University of Louvain-laNeuve. Directive 93/96 establishes a *565 right of residence for students under Community law. That right of residence, which is ancillary to the right of residence on other grounds, [FN61] is subject, under Article 1 of the directive, to three conditions: 1. a person who avails himself of the right of residence as a student must be enrolled "in a recognised educational establishment for the principal purpose of following a vocational training course there"; 2. he must be covered by sickness insurance in respect of all risks in the host Member State; 3. he must assure the relevant national authority, by means of a declaration or by such alternative means as he may choose that are at least equivalent, that he has sufficient resources to avoid becoming a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during his period of residence. FN61 See Article 1 of Directive 93/96: "... the Member States shall recognise the right of residence for any student who is a national of a Member State and who does not enjoy that right under other provisions of Community law ..." A78 In this respect, the text of the directive reiterates the criteria for non-discriminatory access to vocational training previously established by the case law of the Court. [FN62] FN62 See Raulin, cited above at fn. 13, para. [39] . A79 It can be assumed that the first condition is fulfilled in the present case. The plaintiff is enrolled as a fully-registered student at the University of Louvain-la-Neuve. He is following a full-time course in physical education there. Moreover, he appears to be completing the course within the prescribed time. It is for that purpose that he applied for the assistance in question. A80 The Belgian Government has argued that the plaintiff is not lawfully resident in Belgian territory. However, it based that argument on the fact that he did not apply for a residence permit until 1998. On the other hand, he must have enrolled at the university in the proper manner, since, otherwise, the university would not have accorded him "credit facilities to pay his tuition fees". A81 The second condition, requiring sickness insurance cover, also appears to be fulfilled. It has not been focused on in these proceedings, and probably does not pose any problems. A82 As regards the third condition, it can probably be assumed that the plaintiff did not in fact submit a declaration as required during the first three years of studies, in all likelihood because he was not asked for one. The plaintiff did not apply for a residence permit until near the end of the third year of his studies. The fact remains, however, that for three years he fulfilled the condition, if not formally at least substantively. He was able to obtain sufficient resources, by his own efforts, so as not to have to rely on the social assistance system of the host Member State. A83 *566 It is true that the United Kingdom Government has raised the objection that the plaintiff could not have submitted such a declaration since he had been forced to work in

order to support himself, which proves that he did not have sufficient resources. A84 The facts suggest the contrary, however. For three years the plaintiff had sufficient resources and did not have recourse to the social assistance system of the State of residence. Moreover, there is no reason why the pursuit of an activity in order to support oneself should not be recognised as an appropriate means of obtaining resources. It is clear that for three years the plaintiff successfully managed to combine study with occupational activity. Otherwise, he would not in fact have endeavoured to obtain the end-of-course qualification in his final year. A85 I do not see why only "external financing" from parents, State bursaries or grants should be recognised as evidence of means of subsistence. What matters is that the student does not need to rely on the social assistance system. A86 In that context, it must also be pointed out that, in Directive 93/96, unlike in Directives 90/364 [FN63]and 90/365, [FN64]the Community legislature dispensed with the criterion of "sufficient" resources. [FN65]That difference is indicative of a more flexible approach to proof of existing resources. The reason for this may be that a student's right of residence is limited to the duration of the training, while the right of residence under Directives 90/364 and 90/365 is in principle unlimited in time. Another factor might be that it was the legislature's intention not to lay down a criterion, so as not to create a further obstacle to the right of residence for students. The fact that studies are "self-financed", even by means of an occupational activity, should not therefore preclude recognition of the existence of means of subsistence. FN63 See the first sub-paragraph of Article 1(1). FN64 See Article 1(1)(2). FN65 See in this respect the observations submitted by the Commission in Case C424/98, EC Commission v. Italy: [2000] E.C.R. I-4001, para. [39]. A87 However, in the first three years of his studies, the plaintiff did not make a formaldeclaration to that effect. It is, however, reasonable to assume that the declaration is declaratory in nature, so that, if the criterion is fulfilled in substance, the right of residence will not in itself be called into question. There is support for that view in the case law of the Court. In Raulin, the Court held that the principle of non-discrimination with regard to conditions of access to vocational training implies that: a national of a Member State who has been admitted to a vocational training course in another Member State enjoys, in this respect, a right of residence for the duration of the course. [FN66] FN66 See Raulin, cited at fn. 13, para. [34]. As regards the requirement of a residence permit, the Court further held that the issue of such a permit does not create the rights guaranteed by Community law and the lack of a permit cannot affect *567 the exercise of those rights. [FN67] The judgment in MartÍnez Sala must also be construed in this way. The Court points out there that: For the purposes of recognition of the right of residence, a residence permit can only have declaratory and probative force. [FN68] FN67 See Raulin, cited at fn. 13, para. [36], which contains further references. FN68 See MartÍnez Sala , cited at fn. 6, para. [53].

A88 In so far as the declaration as to available means of subsistence is a stage prior to the residence permit, the position here cannot in principle be any different. In Case C424/98, [FN69]the Court held that Article 1 of Directive 93/96 provides only that the student must give an assurance that he has means of subsistence. However, recognition of the right of residence is made conditional on the student being enrolled in a recognised establishment for the principal purpose of following a vocational training course and being covered by sickness insurance in respect of all risks in the host Member State. [FN70] FN69 Case C-424/98, EC Commission v. Italy, cited at fn. 65. FN70 See Case C-424/98, cited at fn. 65, para. [44]. In that case, the Court found against the Member State on the ground that it had disregarded the limits laid down by Community law by requiring in its legislation that students provide an assurance that they have resources of a specific amount, without leaving them to choose the means by which to provide that assurance. [FN71] FN71 See Case C-424/98, cited at fn. 65, para. [46]. A89 It can therefore be concluded that the plaintiff in the main proceedings also has a right of residence in his capacity as a student. Concurrent application of more than one right of residence A90 The question now is what legal and factual consequences follow from that "right of residence", which derives, on the one hand, from occupational activity and, on the other, from the pursuit of studies. The French Government has contended that the status of worker and that of student are mutually exclusive. Other parties have contended that the status of student takes precedence. A91 It is not entirely unusual in Community law for one and the same person to enjoy a right of residence deriving from different legal bases. For example, the child of a migrant worker, whose right of residence derives from his status as a family member, will, upon taking up an occupational activity, acquire his own right of residence in his capacity as a worker. Spouses may conceivably find themselves in a comparable situation where the spouse who has followed the migrant worker enjoys a right of residence by virtue of both his family status and any occupational activity which he pursues. It is therefore perfectly possible for rights to apply concurrently in this way. Indeed, in such circumstances, a person with a right of residence does not necessarily have to choose between the bases on which that right is founded. The *568 fact that it is in principle possible for rights to run parallel in this way means that a person may enjoy a right of residence by virtue of both occupational activity and study at the same time. A92 A problem might arise from the fact that different rights and obligations are attached to each legal basis. In those circumstances, the interests of free movement dictate that the consequences more favourable to the holder of the right of residence should apply. The objections raised at the hearing by the French and UK Governments, to the effect that a foreign national who arrived in the host Member State as a student can, for the duration of his course, rely only on his right of residence as a student and cannot change his status as such without authorisation from the Member State, cannot be upheld. Where the legal and factual conditions for the enjoyment of a right of residence as a

migrant worker are fulfilled, refusing to allow a person to rely on his status as such would amount to the unilateral introduction by a Member State of an obstacle to the free movement of workers. A93 Rights of residence founded on different legal bases can therefore be enjoyed both consecutively and simultaneously. In a case such as that of the plaintiff, the person with the right of residence, although enrolled at a university and a fully-registered student, could therefore at the same time rely on his status as a worker, if and in so far as he pursues an occupational activity which is not totally marginal and ancillary. A94 For the sake of clarity and completeness, I would point out that the holding of occasional "student jobs" will scarcely satisfy those criteria. It is indeed conceivable that a degree of alternation between study and occupational activity might be taken into account in assessing the criteria "marginal and ancillary". In those circumstances, the criterion against which the occupational activity would have to be measured might be whether the vocational training was predominant. In a case such as this one, however, where the beneficiary has supported himself independently for a number of years, application of that criterion is unnecessary. Retaining the status of worker A95 Assuming that the plaintiff was a worker within the meaning of Community law for a period of three years, under the case law of the Court he could, during that period, have applied for the "minimex" to supplement his income. [FN72] Moreover, the making of such an application would not have resulted in the termination of his right of residence. [FN73] If the plaintiff had continued to pursue an occupational activity during the fourth year of his residence in the host State, he probably would have been entitled to the "minimex". It will have to be assumed, *569 however, that the plaintiff terminated his occupational activity in order to complete his studies. FN72 See Kempf, cited at fn. 39. FN73 Kempf, cited at fn. 39. A96 The question therefore arises whether the plaintiff may nonetheless be able to rely on his former status as a worker. In this respect, it must be assumed, in accordance with the case law of the Court, that, in principle, a person loses his status of worker once the employment relationship has ended, whilst that status continues to produce certain effects after the employment relationship has ended. [FN74] And indeed, in those cases in which the Court has hitherto had occasion to rule on the relationship between occupational activity and subsequent vocational training or study, [FN75] it has unreservedly recognised the status of worker as continuing to produce effects. In Lair, it expressed this as follows: ... there is a basis in Community law for the view that the rights guaranteed to migrant workers do not necessarily depend on the actual or continuing existence of an employment relationship. [FN76] FN74 See MartÍnez Sala, cited at fn. 6, para. [32]. FN75 See Lair, cited at fn. 15; Brown, cited at fn. 13; and Bernini, cited at fn. 42. FN76 Lair, para. [31].

Persons who have previously pursued in the host Member State an effective and genuine activity as an employed person (...), but who are no longer employed are nevertheless considered to be workers under certain provisions of Community law. [FN77] FN77 Lair, para. [33]. The Court of Justice then lists a number of provisions which grant rights to "unemployed" migrant workers. [FN78] On balance, the Court finds that "migrant workers are guaranteed certain rights linked to the status of worker even when they are no longer in an employment relationship". [FN79] FN78 Lair, paras [34] & [35]. FN79 Lair, para. [36]. In the field of grants for university education, the Court makes eligibility for assistance subject to there being an element of continuity between the previous occupational activity and the new course of study, in the sense that "there must be a relationship between the purpose of the studies and the previous occupational activity". [FN80] Such continuity is not, however, essential where a migrant has involuntarily become unemployed and is obliged by conditions on the job market to undertake occupational retraining in another field of activity. [FN81] FN80 Lair, para. [37]. FN81 Lair, para. [37]. In conclusion, the Court held that: a national of another Member State who has undertaken university studies in the host State leading to a professional qualification, after having engaged in occupational activity in that State, must be regarded as having retained his status as a worker and is entitled as such to the benefit of Article 7(2) of Regulation 1612/68, provided that there is a link between the previous occupational activity and the studies in question. [FN82] FN82 Lair, para. [39] *570 . A97 In those circumstances, the status of worker--as the Portuguese Government submits--could be regarded as being retained where there is a link between the occupational activity and the study. It would be for the national court to determine whether such a substantive link existed. A98 In the absence of any kind of substantive link, however, the question arises whether the status of worker may be retained on other grounds. In order to answer that question, it is necessary, first of all, to examine the main differences and similarities between this dispute and the cases in which the Court has required there to be an element of "continuity". [FN83] FN83 See Lair, cited at fn. 15; Brown, cited at fn. 13; and Bernini, cited at fn. 42. A99 The cases dealt with by the Court thus far have all concerned occupational activity and study undertaken one after the other, in some instances with long, although

variable, intervals between the occupational activity and the commencement of study. [FN84] The criterion of continuity is therefore capable of ensuring that there is a relationship between the occupational activity and the study. It also serves to prevent the mere fact of undertaking study from creating an entitlement to a study grant. FN84 Two and half years in Lair, cited at fn. 15 , and six months in Bernini, cited at fn. 42. A100 The present case is different inasmuch as it concerns study and occupational activity undertaken at the same time. In this instance, a connection between occupational activity and study results, on the one hand, from the time factor itself and, on the other, from the fact that the occupational activity was pursued for the purpose of completing the study. A connection of purpose of this kind cannot in itself call into question the status of worker. As long ago as its judgment in Levin, [FN85] the Court held that occupational activity does not necessarily have to be the only purpose of entry into the territory of a Member State. There is therefore no need for any further criterion to be fulfilled in order to establish a link between occupational activity and study. A person should therefore retain his status as a worker even if his occupational activity is interrupted for the duration of his training, and, therefore, for the duration of his right of residence. FN85 Case 53/81, cited at fn. 39, para. [21]. A101 The plaintiff could accordingly rely on Article 7(2) of Regulation 1612/68 in his capacity as a worker. A102 The view that a working student may have the status of worker might also find support in the Portuguese Government's submission that such a student should not be in a worse position than an unemployed worker. Regard should also be had in this respect to Article 7(1) of Regulation 1612/68, according to which a worker who is a national of a Member State and who becomes unemployed may not, in the territory of another Member State, be treated differently from national workers as regards reinstatement or re-employment. Such a worker is also *571 covered by Article 7(2), under which he is to enjoy the same social and tax advantages as are accorded to national workers. A103 A person such as the plaintiff may therefore rely on Article 7(2) of Regulation 1612/68. Moreover, a social benefit such as that at issue in the present case has been recognised by the Court as being a social advantage within the meaning of that provision. [FN86] FN86 Hoeckx, cited at fn. 3, and Scrivner , cited at fn. 5. A104 While the status of worker does therefore continue to produce effects even after the end of the employment relationship, those effects are nonetheless not unlimited. Where the grant of a benefit is made subject to further conditions, these must be fulfilled. It is of course for the national court alone to verify whether the conditions laid down by national law, such as, for example, the requirement under Article 1(1) of the Belgian Law of 7 August 1974 (see point 12) that a claimant has to be unable "by his own efforts" to obtain the resources applied for, are met, and whether that condition is fulfilled where the claimant voluntarily abandons an activity by which he could obtain such resources. When examining that question, the national court must, however, observe the principle of equal treatment and treat a Community national in the same way as a Belgian worker (or student) in a comparable situation.

The status of student A105 The question whether the plaintiff in the main proceedings may qualify for the "minimex" in his capacity as a student must be examined only in the event that his status as a worker is not recognised. The status enjoyed by students under Community law in the context of access to social advantages has already been broadly defined by the case law of the Court [FN87] and Directive 93/96 which codifies it. A Community national who wishes to study in another Member State enjoys equal treatment as regards access to vocational training, [FN88]which also comprises university studies leading to a professional qualification. [FN89]The right to equal treatment in principle includes the assistance granted to cover enrolment fees and other costs of access to the course, "regardless of how such assistance is calculated or the underlying philosophy". [FN90] FN87 Gravier , cited at fn. 23; Blaizot, cited at fn. 24; Raulin, cited at fn. 13; and Lair, cited at fn. 15 . FN88 See Gravier, cited at fn. 23. FN89 See Blaizot, cited at fn. 25. FN90 Raulin, cited at fn. 14, para. [28]. A106 If the contested benefit could also be classified at least partly as a payment to cover enrolment fees and other costs, in particular tuition fees, [FN91] a person in the same situation as the plaintiff could, in accordance with Article 6 of the EC Treaty, claim equal treatment with national students. This is a matter for the national court to consider. FN91 See Lair, cited at fn. 16, para. [16] *572 . A107 In order for a more substantial subsistence allowance to be obtained under the principle of equal treatment, the facts of the case must fall within the scope of the Treaty, and the grant of assistance must not be precluded by specific provisions. Under the Court's present case law, which is based on the EEC and EC Treaties, a study grant in the form of a maintenance allowance does not fall within the scope of the Treaty. Education policy [FN92]and social security [FN93] have been deemed not to be covered by the Treaty, at least within the relevant limits. FN92 Gravier, cited at fn. 24, para. [19]. FN93 See Case C-120/95, Decker v. Caisse de Maladie des Employés Privés [1998] E.C.R. I-1831; [1998] 2 C.M.L.R. 879, para. [21]; and Case C-158/96, Kohll [1998] E.C.R. I-1931, [1998] 2 C.M.L.R. 928; [1998] 2 C.M.L.R. 879, para. [17]. A108 The fact that the right of residence for students has since been provided for in secondary legislation could conceivably be taken as a basis for arguing that the status of students has thereby become a matter of Community law and is, as such, subject also to the general principle of equality. A109 It is true that Article 3 of the directive states that the directive does not establish entitlement to the payment of maintenance grants by the host Member State on the part of students benefiting from the right of residence. That does not mean, however, that such entitlement could not be founded on another legal basis.

A110 It is true that, in order to obtain a right of residence as a student, a person must be able to give an assurance as to the possession of means of subsistence. [FN94] It is legitimate to ask here whether proof of means of subsistence is a condition of the right of residence or whether recourse to the social assistance system of the host Member State constitutes a potential ground for terminating the right of residence. On the basis of the judgment in Case C-424/98, [FN95] the latter interpretation appears to be correct. If that were the case, the existence of means of subsistence would not be an essential condition of the right of residence. However, the possibility of terminating residence as a result of recourse to the social assistance system is also an instance of unequal treatment which is accepted by Community law and justified on grounds relating to the legitimate interests of the State. FN94 See Article 1 of Directive 93/96. FN95 Cited at fn. 65, para. [44]. A111 Entitlement to equal treatment does not seem possible where the advantage obtained is a recognised ground for withdrawal of the right of residence when the latter is the very prerequisite for the applicability of the principle of equal treatment. A112 The only conceivable solution would be to conclude that, because it infringes a higher rule of law, the provision of secondary legislation is contrary to Community to law and must therefore be set aside. The question therefore arises whether a student may, on the basis of the Treaty alone, assert a right of residence and a further, ensuing right to *573 equal treatment in respect of all the social advantages accorded in the host Member State. A113 Freedom to provide services and citizenship of the Union fall to be considered as possible bases for asserting such a right in this case. (1) Freedom to provide services A114 As long ago as its judgment in Case 186/87 , Cowan v. Trésor Public, [FN96] the Court of Justice conferred on a Community national staying in another Member State as a tourist a right to victims' compensation under the general principle of equal treatment on the ground that he was a recipient of services. In that judgment, the Court held that "persons in a situation governed by Community law must be placed on a completely equal footing with nationals of the Member State". [FN97] The Court referred to that statement in its judgment in Case C-274/96, Criminal proceedings against Bickel and Franz, [FN98] which concerned the principle of equal treatment in the context of the language rules applicable to criminal proceedings. In that judgment, the Court held that: Article 59 therefore covers all nationals of Member States who, independently of other freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty, visit another Member State where they intend or are likely to receive services. [FN99] FN96 [1989] E.C.R. 195; [1990] 2 C.M.L.R. 613. FN97 See Cowan, cited at fn. 96, para. [10]. FN98 [1998] E.C.R. I-7637; [1999] 1 C.M.L.R. 348. FN99 See Bickel and Franz , cited at fn. 98, para. [15].

A115 In accordance with that broad interpretation, persons who exercise their right to move and reside freely in another Member State are in principle entitled to treatment no less favourable than that accorded to nationals of that State .... [FN100] FN100 See Bickel and Franz , cited at fn. 95, para. [16]. In response to the objection that the rules at issue in that case fell within the powers of the Member States, the Court reiterated the limits which Community law sets to their powers in that respect, which consist in observance of the prohibition against discrimination and the prohibition against restricting fundamental freedoms. [FN101] FN101 See Bickel and Franz, cited at fn. 98, para. [17]. A116 A student could conceivably be regarded as a recipient of services within the meaning of that case law. However, in Case 263/86, Belgium v. Humbel, [FN102] when expressly asked about the nature of courses provided in a technical institute, the Court held: that courses taught in a technical institute which form part of the secondary education provided under the national education system cannot be regarded as services. [FN103] FN102 [1988] E.C.R. 5365; [1989] 1 C.M.L.R. 393. FN103 See Humbel, cited at fn. 102, para. [20] and point 2 of the operative part. The Court based that conclusion on the economic characteristics of a service. The essential characteristic of remuneration, which *574 determines whether or not there is a provision of services, is said to lie in the fact it constitutes consideration for the service in question, which consideration is normally agreed upon between the provider and recipient of the service. [FN104] FN104 See Humbel, cited at fn. 102, para. [17]. A117 That characteristic is, however, absent in the case of courses provided under the national education system. First of all, the State, in establishing and maintaining such a system, is not seeking to engage in gainful activity but is fulfilling its duties towards its own population in the social, cultural and educational fields. Secondly, the system in question is, as a general rule, funded from the public purse and not by pupils or their parents. The nature of that activity is not affected by the fact that pupils or their parents must sometimes pay teaching or enrolment fees in order to make a certain contribution to the operating expenses of the system. [FN105] FN105 See Humbel, cited at fn. 107, paras [18] & [19]. Those considerations can be extended to university courses. It follows from this that a student cannot as such be regarded as a recipient of services within the meaning of Community law. A118 The only question, therefore, is whether he is entitled to equal treatment as a person residing lawfully in another Member State. This is where citizenship of the Union, to which the national court expressly refers in its question, enters consideration.

(2) Citizenship of the Union A119 Every person holding the nationality of a Member State [FN106] is a citizen of the Union and every citizen of the Union has the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States. [FN107] In Bickel and Franz, the Court expressly referred to citizenship of the Union in examining the legal basis for the plaintiffs' residence. [FN108] FN106 See Article 8 of the EC Treaty. FN107 See Article 8a of the EC Treaty. FN108 See Bickel and Franz, cited at fn. 98, para. [15]. A120 This citizenship affords a citizen of the Union an original right of residence under the Treaty. Since this individual legal status as such falls without any doubt within the scope of the Treaty, it must be subject to the general prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality. That would mean that a citizen of the Union with an unlimited right of residence could in principle also claim equal treatment in respect of social benefits. A121 However, the right of residence for citizens of the Union is not unlimited, but "subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in this Treaty and by the measures adopted to give it effect." [FN109] FN109 See Article 8a of the EC Treaty. A122 Those limits include Council Directives 90/364, 90/365 and 90/36 on the right of residence, all three of which state that beneficiaries of the right of residence must not become a burden on public finances. [FN110] That *575 is why all three of them also provide that beneficiaries must have means of subsistence in order to exercise a right of residence. [FN111]The condition which the Community legislation imposes on the exercise of the right of residence, in conjunction with the requirement that public finances should not be unreasonably "burdened" during residence, may be regarded as a limitation, tolerated by Community law, of the right to equal treatment in the field of social benefits. Recourse to the social assistance system could in that case constitute a ground for terminating the right of residence. FN110 See the fourth recital in the preamble to Directive 90/364, cited at fn. 8, the fourth recital in the preamble to Directive 90/365, cited at fn. 10, and the sixth recital in the preamble to Directive 93/96, cited at fn. 3. FN111 See Article 1 of Directives 90/364, 90/365 and 93/96 respectively. A123 The precise circumstances under which public finances are to be regarded as being unreasonably "burdened" are not to be ascertained directly from the relevant provisions of Community law themselves, particularly since, as I have argued here, recourse to public funds cannot lead automatically to termination of the right of residence. Member States therefore retain a certain discretion in determining what those circumstances are. A124 Article 55 of the Royal Decree of 8 October 1981 must be seen in that context. Under paragraph 4(2) thereof, the right of residence of a student who is a Community national and who is in principle entitled to reside in Belgium may be terminated where

that student has received a certain amount of financial assistance for a specified period and is not able to repay that assistance within six months. A125 Within the context described, that legal situation does not conflict with Community law. It can therefore be concluded that a Community national who enjoys a right of residence by virtue of citizenship of the Union may in principle assert a right to equal treatment even in respect of social benefits. Recourse to the social benefits available in the host State is exhausted, however, in circumstances which are capable of terminating the right of residence. Conclusion A126 In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the questions referred for a preliminary ruling be answered as follows: In order to answer the question whether a Community national is entitled to the "minimex", it must first be determined whether he is a worker within the meaning of Community law and whether in that capacity he can claim equal treatment with nationals. It is not in principle compatible with Community law, in particular with the principles of European citizenship and non-discrimination enshrined in Articles 6 and 8 of the Treaty establishing the European Community (now Articles 12 and 17 EC), for entitlement to a non-contributory social benefit, such as that introduced by Article 7 of the Belgian Law of 7 August 1974 on the "minimex", not to be available to all citizens of the Union. However, reliance on the principle of equal treatment is subject to strict limitations which apply in any event where recourse to the social assistance system constitutes a ground for terminating the right of residence. *576 JUDGMENT 1 By judgment of 7 May 1999, received at the Court on 19 May 1999, the Tribunal du travail de Nivelles (Industrial Tribunal, Nivelles) referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 234EC two questions on the interpretation of Articles 6, 8 and 8a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC, 17 EC and 18 EC) and Council Directive 93/96 on the right of residence for students. [FN112] FN112 [1993] O.J. L317/59. 2 Those questions were raised in proceedings between Mr Rudy Grzelczyk and the Centre public d'aide sociale d'Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve (Public Social Assistance Centre for Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve, hereinafter "the CPAS") concerning the CPAS's decision to stop payment of the "minimex", the minimum subsistence allowance (hereinafter referred to as "the minimex"). Relevant Community legislation 3 The first paragraph of Article 6 of the Treaty provides: Within the scope of application of this Treaty, and without prejudice to any special provisions contained therein, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited. 4 Article 8of the Treaty provides: 1. Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union.

2. Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights conferred by this Treaty and shall be subject to the duties imposed thereby. 5 Article 8a of the Treaty is worded as follows: 1. Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in this Treaty and by the measures adopted to give it effect. 2. The Council may adopt provisions with a view to facilitating the exercise of the rights referred to in paragraph 1; save as otherwise provided in this Treaty, the Council shall act unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after obtaining the assent of the European Parliament. 6 The fourth recital in the preamble to both Council Directive 90/364 on the right of residence [FN113] and Council Directive 90/365 on the right of residence for employees and self-employed persons who have ceased their occupational activity [FN114] and the sixth recital in the preamble to Directive 93/96--which essentially replaced Council Directive 90/366 on the right of residence for students [FN115] after it was annulled by the Court of Justice [FN116]--state that beneficiaries of those directives must not *577 become an unreasonable burden on the public finances of the host Member State. FN113 [1990] O.J. L180/26. FN114 [1990] O.J. L180/28. FN115 [1990] O.J. L180/30. FN116 Case C-295/90, European Parliament v. EC Council: [1992] E.C.R. I-4193; [1992] 3 C.M.L.R. 281. 7 According to Article 1 of Directive 93/96, In order to lay down conditions to facilitate the exercise of the right of residence and with a view to guaranteeing access to vocational training in a non-discriminatory manner for a national of a Member State who has been accepted to attend a vocational training course in another Member State, the Member States shall recognise the right of residence for any student who is a national of a Member State and who does not enjoy that right under other provisions of Community law, and for the student's spouse and their dependent children, where the student assures the relevant national authority, by means of a declaration or by such alternative means as the student may choose that are at least equivalent, that he has sufficient resources to avoid becoming a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during their period of residence, provided that the student is enrolled in a recognised educational establishment for the principal purpose of following a vocational training course there and that he is covered by sickness insurance in respect of all risks in the host Member State. Relevant national legislation 8 Article 1 of the Law of 7 August 1974 establishing the right to a minimum subsistence allowance [FN117]provides: 1. Any Belgian having reached the age of majority, who is actually resident in Belgium and who does not have adequate resources and is not able to obtain them either by his own efforts or from other sources, shall be entitled to a minimum subsistence allowance. FN117 Moniteur belge of 18 September 1974, p. 11363.

The King shall determine the meaning of the words actually resident. The same entitlement is granted to minors treated as being of full age on account of marriage, and also to single persons who are responsible for one or more children. 2. The King may, by decree deliberated by the Council of Ministers, extend the application of this law, subject to such conditions as he shall set, to other categories of minors, and also to persons not possessing Belgian nationality. 9 According to Article 1 of the Royal Decree of 27 March 1987, [FN118] which extends application of the Law of 7 August 1974 to persons not possessing Belgian nationality: The scope of the Law of 7 August 1974 establishing a right to a minimum subsistence allowance shall be extended to the following persons: (i) those to whom Regulation 1612/68of the Council of the European Communities of 15 October 1968 on the freedom of movement for workers within the Community applies; (ii) stateless persons to whom the Convention on the Status of Stateless Persons, signed in New York on 28 September 1954 and approved by the Law of 12 May 1960 applies; (iii) refugees within the meaning of Article 49 of the Law of 15 December 1980 on entry to Belgian territory, residence, establishment and the expulsion of foreigners. *578 FN118 Moniteur belge of 7 April 1987, p. 5068. The main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling 10 In 1995 Mr Grzelczyk, a French national, began a course of university studies in physical education at the Catholic University of Louvain-la-Neuve and for that purpose took up residence in Belgium. During the first three years of his studies, he defrayed his own costs of maintenance, accommodation and studies by taking on various minor jobs and by obtaining credit facilities. 11 At the beginning of his fourth and final year of study, he applied to the CPAS for payment of the minimex. In its report, the CPAS observed that Mr Grzelczyk had worked hard to finance his studies, but that his final academic year, involving the writing of a dissertation and the completion of a qualifying period of practical training, would be more demanding than the previous years. For those reasons, by decision of 16 October 1998, the CPAS granted Mr Grzelczyk the minimex, calculated at the "single rate", for the period from 5 October 1998 to 30 June 1999. 12 The CPAS applied to the Belgian State authorities for reimbursement of the minimex parteaid to Mr Grzelczyk. The competent federal minister, however, refused to reimburse the CPAS on the ground that the legal requirements for the grant of the minimex, and in particular the nationality requirement, had not been satisfied, whereupon the CPAS withdrew the minimex from Mr Grzelczyk with effect from 1 January 1999, for the stated reason that "the person concerned is an EEC national enrolled as a student". 13 Mr Grzelczyk challenged that decision before the Labour Tribunal, Nivelles. The tribunal observed that, according to the case law of the Court of Justice, the minimex is a social advantage within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Council Regulation 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community [FN119] and that, under Belgian law, entitlement to the minimex had been extended to persons to whom Regulation 1612/68 applies. It pointed out, however, that Mr Grzelczyk did not, in the CPAS's view, satisfy all the requirements for claiming the minimex under its extended scope since his student status prevented him from being regarded as a worker and his residence in Belgium was not attributable to operation of the principle of free movement of workers. The Labour Tribunal also referred to the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-

85/96 , MartÍnez Sala v. Freistaat Bayern [FN120] and queried whether the principles of European citizenship and non-discrimination precluded application of the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings. FN119 [1968] O.J. Spec. Ed. 47. FN120 [1998] E.C.R. I-2691. 14 In those circumstances, the Labour Tribunal, Nivelles, recognising the urgency of Mr Grzelczyk's situation, granted him a flat-rate allowance of BFr 20,000 per month for the period from 1 January 1999 *579 to 30 June 1999 and stayed the proceedings in order to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: 1. Is it contrary to Community law--more particularly the principles of European citizenship and of non-discrimination enshrined in Articles 6 and 8 of the Treaty establishing the European Community--for entitlement to a non-contributory social benefit, such as that introduced by the Belgian Law of 7 August 1974 on the minimum subsistence allowance, to be granted only to nationals of the Member States to whom Regulation 1612/68 applies and not to all citizens of the Union? 2. In the alternative, are Articles 6 and 8a of the Treaty and Directive 93/96 of 29 October 1993 on the right of residence for students to be interpreted to the effect that, after a student's right of residence has been acknowledged, he may subsequently be barred from entitlement to non-contributory social benefits, such as the minimum subsistence allowance, payable by the host country, and, if so, is that exclusion general and definitive in nature? Preliminary remarks 15 The parties to the main proceedings, the Member States which have submitted observations and the Commission have all devoted a substantial part of their observations, both written and oral, to the question whether the fact that during the first three years of his studies Mr Grzelczyk took various paid jobs brings him within the scope of the Royal Decree of 27 March 1987 as a worker within the meaning of Community law. 16 However, it is clear from the national court's order for reference that it adopted the analysis of the CPAS that Mr Grzelczyk did not fulfil the criteria for treatment as a worker within the meaning of Community law. Against that factual and legal background the national court raises the question of the compatibility of the relevant Belgian legislation with Community law, and in particular with Articles 6, 8 and 8a of the Treaty. 17 That being so, the Court must answer its questions as they have been framed and within the limits set by the national court. 18 It is for the national court to determine, in the light, in particular, of the Opinion of the Advocate General, whether or not the facts and circumstances of the case are such as to permit Mr Grzelczyk to be regarded as a worker for the purposes of Community law. The first question referred for a preliminary ruling 19 By its first question, the Belgian court asks essentially whether Articles 6 and 8 of the Treaty preclude entitlement to a non-contributory social benefit, such as the minimex, from being made conditional, in the case of nationals of Member States other than the host State where they are legally resident, on their falling within the scope of Regulation 1612/68 when no such condition applies to nationals of the host Member State.

*580 Observations submitted to the Court 20 The CPAS argues that, as Community law stands at present, it would be wrong to regard all citizens of the European Union as being entitled to claim non-contributory social benefits, such as the minimex. It is clear from the wording of the provision itself that Article 8a(1) of the Treaty does not have direct effect and that its implementation must always have due regard for the limits laid down in the Treaty and defined in secondary legislation. This includes, in particular, Directives 90/364, 90/365 and 93/96, which subject exercise of the freedom of movement to a requirement to demonstrate that the person concerned possesses sufficient resources and social security cover. 21 The Belgian and Danish Governments submit that the entry into force of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty of Amsterdam does not affect that interpretation. Citizenship of the Union does not mean that Union citizens obtain rights that are new and more extensive than those already deriving from the EC Treaty and secondary legislation. The principle of citizenship of the Union has no autonomous content, but is merely linked to the other provisions of the Treaty. 22 The French Government submits that the idea that the principle of equal treatment in the matter of social advantages should be extended to all citizens of the Union when at present it applies only to workers and members of their families would amount to establishing total equality between citizens of the Union established in a Member State and nationals of that State, which would be difficult to reconcile with rights attaching to nationality. 23 The Portuguese Government points out that, since the entry into force of the Treaty on European Union, nationals of the Member States are no longer regarded in Community law as being primarily economic factors in an essentially economic community. One consequence of the introduction of Union citizenship is that the limits and conditions which Community law imposes on the exercise of the right to freedom of movement and residence within the territory of the Member States should no longer be construed as envisaging a purely economic right arising from the EC Treaty but as being concerned only with those exceptions that are based on reasons of public policy, public security or public health. Furthermore, if from the time when the Treaty on European Union entered into force, nationals of the Member States acquired the status of citizen of the Union and ceased to be regarded as purely economic agents, it follows that the application of Regulation 1612/68 ought also to be extended to all citizens of the Union, whether or not they are workers within the meaning of that regulation. 24 The UK Government, referring to the judgment in MartÍnez Sala, cited above, argues that, whilst Mr Grzelczyk is suffering discrimination on the grounds of his nationality, Article 6 of the EC Treaty does not apply to his situation because any discrimination *581 against him falls outside the scope of the Treaty. Article 6 cannot have the effect of striking down limitations upon the scope of Regulation 1612/68, whether read alone or together with Article 8 of the Treaty. 25 The Belgian Government adds that the applicant in the main proceedings is claiming the minimex whereas this type of funding falls outside the scope of Article 6 of the Treaty, of Article 126of the EC Treaty (now Article 149 EC) and of Article 127 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 150 EC). Funding such as the minimex is an instrument of social policy with no particular link with vocational training. As Community law stands at present, it is not within Community competence. 26 The Commission takes the view that Articles 6 and 8 of the Treaty must be interpreted as granting to every citizen of the Union the right not to suffer discrimination by a Member State on grounds of nationality, within the scope of application ratione

materiae of the Treaty, provided that the Union citizen's situation has some relevant connection with the Member State concerned. Findings of the Court 27 In order to place the legal problem raised by this case in its context, it should be recalled that, in Case 249/83, Hoeckx v. Openbaar Centrum voor Maatschappelijk Welzijn, Kalmthout, [FN121] concerning an unemployed Dutch national returning to Belgium where she made a fresh application for the minimex, the Court held that a social benefit providing a general guarantee of a minimum subsistence allowance, such as that provided for by the Belgian Law of 7 August 1974, constitutes a social advantage within the meaning of Regulation 1612/68. FN121 [1985] E.C.R. 973; [1987] 3 C.M.L.R. 638. 28 At the time of the facts giving rise to Hoeckx, all Community nationals were entitled to the minimex, although nationals of Member States other than Belgium had to satisfy the additional requirement of having actually resided in Belgium for at least five years immediately preceding the date on which the minimex was granted. [FN122] It was the Royal Decree of 27 March 1987, which repealed the Royal Decree of 8 January 1976, which restricted entitlement to the minimex, in the case of nationals of other Member States, to persons to whom Regulation 1612/68 applied. The residence condition, which had been amended in the meantime, was finally removed after infringement proceedings were brought by the Commission against Belgium. [FN123] FN122 See Article 1of the Royal Decree of 8 January 1976, Moniteur belgeof 13 January 1976, p. 311. FN123 Case C-326/90, EC Commission v. Belgium: [1992] E.C.R. I-5517. 29 It is clear from the documents before the Court that a student of Belgian nationality, though not a worker within the meaning of Regulation 1612/68, who found himself in exactly the same circumstances as Mr Grzelczyk would satisfy the conditions for *582 obtaining the minimex. The fact that Mr Grzelczyk is not of Belgian nationality is the only bar to its being granted to him. It is not therefore in dispute that the case is one of discrimination solely on the ground of nationality. 30 Within the sphere of application of the Treaty, such discrimination is, in principle, prohibited by Article 6. In the present case, Article 6must be read in conjunction with the provisions of the Treaty concerning citizenship of the Union in order to determine its sphere of application. 31 Union citizenship is destined to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States, enabling those who find themselves in the same situation to enjoy the same treatment in law irrespective of their nationality, subject to such exceptions as are expressly provided for. 32 As the Court held in paragraph 63 of its judgment in MartÍnez Sala, cited above, a citizen of the European Union, lawfully resident in the territory of a host Member State, can rely on Article 6 of the Treaty in all situations which fall within the scope ratione materiae of Community law. 33 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 freely in another Member State, as conferred by Article 8a of the Treaty. [FN124]

FN124 See Case C-274/96, Criminal proceedings against Bickel and Another : [1998] E.C.R. I-7637; [1999] 1 C.M.L.R. 348, paras [15] & [16]. 34 It is true that, in paragraph 18 of its judgment in Case 197/86, Brown v. Secretary of State for Scotland , [FN125] the Court held that, at that stage in the development of Community law, assistance given to students for maintenance and training fell in principle outside the scope of the EEC Treaty for the purposes of Article 7 thereof (later Article 6 of the EC Treaty). FN125 [1988] E.C.R. 3205; [1988] 3 C.M.L.R. 403. 35 However, since Brown, the Treaty on European Union has introduced citizenship of the European Union into the EC Treaty and added to Title VIII of Part Three a new chapter 3 devoted to education and vocational training. There is nothing in the amended text of the Treaty to suggest that students who are citizens of the Union, when they move to another Member State to study there, lose the rights which the Treaty confers on citizens of the Union. Furthermore, since Brown, the Council has also adopted Directive 93/96, which provides that the Member States must grant rights of residence to student nationals of a Member State who satisfy certain requirements. 36 The fact that a Union citizen pursues university studies in a Member State other than the State of which he is a national cannot, of itself, deprive him of the possibility of relying on the prohibition of all discrimination on grounds of nationality laid down in Article 6 of the Treaty. 37 *583 As pointed out in paragraph 30 above, in the present case that prohibition must be read in conjunction with Article 8a(1) of the Treaty, which proclaims "the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in this Treaty and by the measures adopted to give it effect". 38 As regards those limitations and conditions, it is clear from Article 1 of Directive 93/96 that Member States may require of students who are nationals of a different Member State and who wish to exercise the right of residence on their territory, first, that they satisfy the relevant national authority that they have sufficient resources to avoid becoming a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during their period of residence, next, that they be enrolled in a recognised educational establishment for the principal purpose of following a vocational training course there and, lastly, that they be covered by sickness insurance in respect of all risks in the host Member State. 39 Article 3 of Directive 93/96 makes clear that the directive does not establish any right to payment of maintenance grants by the host Member States for students who benefit from the right of residence. On the other hand, there are no provisions in the directive that preclude those to whom it applies from receiving social security benefits. 40 As regards more specifically the question of resources, Article 1 of Directive 93/96does not require resources of any specific amount, nor that they be evidence by specific documents. The article refers merely to a declaration, or such alternative means as are at least equivalent, which enables the student to satisfy the national authority concerned that he has, for himself and, in relevant cases, for his spouse and dependent children, sufficient resources to avoid becoming a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during their stay. [FN126] FN126 See para. [44] of the judgment in Case C-424/98, EC Commission v. Italy: [2000] E.C.R. I-4001 .

41 In merely requiring such a declaration, Directive 93/96 differs from Directives 90/364 and 90/365, which do indicate the minimum level of income that persons wishing to avail themselves of those directives must have. That difference is explained by the special characteristics of student residence in comparison with that of persons to whom Directives 90/364 and 90/365 apply. [FN127] FN127 See para. [45] of the judgment in EC Commission v. Italy, cited above. 42 That interpretation does not, however, prevent a Member State from taking the view that a student who has recourse to social assistance no longer fulfils the conditions of his right of residence or from taking measures, within the limits imposed by Community law, either to withdraw his residence permit or not to renew it. 43 Nevertheless, in no case may such measures become the automatic *584 consequence of a student who is a national of another Member State having recourse to the host Member State's social assistance system. 44 Whilst Article 4 of Directive 93/96 does indeed provide that the right of residence is to exist for as long as beneficiaries of that right fulfil the conditions laid down in Article 1, the sixth recital in the directive's preamble envisages that beneficiaries of the right of residence must not become an "unreasonable burden on the public finances of the host Member State". Directive 93/96, like Directives 90/364 and 90/365, thus accepts a certain degree of financial solidarity between nationals of a host Member State and nationals of other Member States, particularly if the difficulties which a beneficiary of the right of residence encounters are temporary. 45 Furthermore, a student's financial position may change with the passage of time for reasons beyond his control. The truthfulness of a student's declaration is therefore to be assessed only as at the time when it is made. 46 It follows from the foregoing that Articles 6 and 8 of the Treaty preclude entitlement to a non-contributory social benefit, such as the minimex, from being made conditional, in the case of nationals of Member States other than the host State where they are legally resident, on their falling within the scope of Regulation 1612/68 when no such condition applies to nationals of the host Member State. The second question referred for a preliminary ruling 47 In view of the answer given to the first question, and since the second question was put in the alternative, it is not necessary to reply to that question. The temporal effects of the present judgment 48 In its written observations the Belgian Government asks the Court, in the event that it finds that a person such as the applicant in the main proceedings may receive the minimex, to limit in time the effects of the present judgment. 49 In support of that request, the Belgian Government states that the Court's judgment would have retroactive effects which would throw into doubt legal relations established in good faith and in accordance with secondary legislation. More specifically, it fears that systems of social allowances for students will be upset if secondary legislation is changed as a result of a new interpretation of Community law allowing students to rely on Articles 6 and 8 of the Treaty in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings. The principle of legal certainty therefore requires that the effects of the judgment be limited in time.

50 The Court has repeatedly held that an interpretation it gives to a provision of Community law clarifies and defines its meaning and *585 scope only as it should have been understood and applied from the time of its entry into force. [FN128] FN128 See Joined Cases C 367-377/93, FG Roders BV and Others v. Inspecteur des Invoerrechten en Accijnzen: [1995] E.C.R. I-2229, para. [42], and Case C-35/97, EC Commission v. France: [1998] E.C.R. I-5325, para. [46]. 51 It is only exceptionally that the Court may, in application of the general principle of legal certainty inherent in the Community legal order, be moved to restrict the possibility of any person concerned to rely upon a provision which it has interpreted with a view to calling into question legal relationships established in good faith. [FN129] FN129 See, inter alia, Case C-104/98, Buchner and Others v. Socialversicherungsanstalt der Bauern: [2000] E.C.R. I-3625, para. [39]. 52 It is also settled in case law that the financial consequences which might ensue for a Member State from a preliminary ruling do not in themselves justify limiting the temporal effect of the ruling. [FN130] FN130 See, in particular, Buchner and Others, cited above, para. [41]. 53 The Court has taken that step only in quite specific circumstances, where there was a risk of serious economic repercussions owing in particular to the large nubmer of legal relationships entered into in good faith on the basis of rules considered to be validly in force and where it appeared that both individuals and national authorities had been led into adopting practices which did not comply with Community law by reason of objective, significant uncertainty regarding the implications of Community provisions, to which the conduct of other Member States or the Commission may even have contributed. [FN131] FN131 See, in particular, Roders and Others, cited above, para. [43]. 54 In the present case, in support of its request for limitation of the temporal effects of the present judgment, the Belgian Government has produced no evidence to show that any objective and significant uncertainty regarding the implications of the Treaty provisions concerning citizenship of the Union which entered into force on 1 November 1993 had led its national authorities to adopt practices which did not comply with those provisions. 55 Consequently, there are no grounds for limiting the effects of the present judgment in time. Costs 56 The costs incurred by the Belgian, Danish, French, Portuguese and UK Governments and by the Council and Commission, which have submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main action, a step in the proceedings pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. R1 Order

On those grounds, THE COURT, in answer to the questions referred to it by the Tribunal du travail de Nivelles by judgment of 7 May 1999, *586 HEREBY RULES: Articles 6 and 8 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC and 17 EC ) preclude entitlement to a non-contributory social benefit, such as the minimex, from being made conditional, in the case of nationals of Member States other than the host State where they are legally resident, on their falling within the scope of Regulation 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on the freedom of movement for workers within the Community when no such condition applies to nationals of the host Member State. (c) Sweet & Maxwell Limited [2002] 1 C.M.L.R. 19