ECJ 15 December 2016, joined cases C-401/15 to C-403/15 (Depesme), Free movement, social insurance:

Noémie Depesme (C-401/15), Saïd Kerrou (C-401/15), Adrien Kauffmann (C-402/15) and Maxime Lefort (C-403/15) – v – Ministre de l’Enseignement supérieur et de la Recherche, Luxembourgian case

ECJ 15 December 2016, joined cases C-401/15 to C-403/15 (Depesme), Free movement, social insurance

These cases concern the refusal by Luxembourg to grant financial aid to students studying in Luxembourg whilst living in France or Belgium, when they would be entitled to such aid under Regulation 492/2011 on free movement (pursuant to Article 45 TFEU), based on their family circumstances, were it not that the person employed in Luxembourg was not their father but their stepfather. The ECJ found in favour of the students.

Summary

Ruling

Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 […] must be interpreted as meaning that a child of a frontier worker who is able to benefit indirectly from the social advantages referred to in the latter provision, such as study finance granted by a Member State to the children of workers pursuing or who have pursued an activity in that Member State, means not only a child who has a child-parent relationship with that worker, but also a child of the spouse or registered partner of that worker, where that worker supports that child. The latter requirement is the result of a factual situation, which it is for the national authorities and, if appropriate, the national courts, to assess, and it is not necessary for them to determine the reasons for that contribution or make a precise estimation of its amount.

Auteursinformatie

Download citeerwijze bij dit artikel

Onderwerpen

Rechtbank Amsterdam ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:3972

AR Updates

Rechtbank Amsterdam ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:3974

Rechtbank Amsterdam ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2025:4681

Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie ECLI:EU:C:2025:526

Hoge Raad ECLI:NL:HR:2025:1095

Rechtbank Den Haag ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2025:11123