C-238/83

JUDGMENT OF 5. 7. 1984 — CASE 238/83

In Case 238/83 REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Commission de Première Instance du Contentieux de la Sécurité Sociale et de la Mutualité Sociale Agricole [Social Security and Agricultural Social Insurance Mutual Benefit Appeals Board], Paris, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between CAISSE D'ALLOCATIONS FAMILIALES DE LA RÉGION PARISIENNE [Family Allowances Fund for the Paris Region] and

M R AND MRS RICHARD MEADE

for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 48 of the EEC Treaty and the provisions of Community law on the grant of family allowances,

T H E C O U R T (Third Chamber) composed of: Y. Galmot, President of Chamber, U. Everling and C. Kakouris, Judges, Advocate General: G. F. Mancini Registrar: P. Heim gives the following

JUDGMENT

to be resident in France with the result obstructed the free movement of persons that entitlement to family allowances is and was contrary to Article 48 of the retained. EEC Treaty since the child was thus prevented from pursuing his studies or professional training in another Member 2. Richard Meade, a United States State. national, his wife, a United Kingdom national, and their two children, both United Kingdom nationals, have been Taking the view that the solution of the resident since 1973 in France where Mr dispute depended on the interpretation Meade is self-employed. The Caisse of Community law, the Commission de d'Allocations Familiales de la Région Première Instance du Contentieux de la Parisienne [Family Allowances Fund for Sécurité Sociale, Paris, by decision of 3 de Paris Region, hereinafter referred to June 1983, stayed the proceedings and as "the Fund"] paid family allowances to requested the Court of Justice to give a the parents in respect of the two preliminary ruling under Article 177 of children. the EEC Treaty on the following question:

In 1977 one of the children was sent to school in the United Kingdom. When "Is the Caisse d'Allocations Familiales the Fund learned of this in January 1980 entitled, on the basis of Article 48 of the it ceased payment of the family EEC Treaty, to demand repayment of allowances and claimed repayment from the family allowances paid to the parents Mr and Mrs Meade of the sum of FF of a young man of British nationality on 6 436.80 wrongly paid to them between the ground that he is pursuing his studies March 1978 and January 1980 in respect in England and to suspend payment of of the two children, one of whom was the said allowances on the same pursuing his studies abroad. ground?"

The Commission suggests first that the II — W r i t t e n o b s e r v a t i o n s question submitted should be re-worded since its purpose is to ascertain the scope ratione personae and ratione materiae of 1. Observations of the Fund Article 48 of the EEC Treaty in circum- stances such as those of the present case. The Fund stated that before it adopted its decision it had determined that Regu- The persons covered by the relevant lation N o 1408/71 of the Council of provisions of Community law are 14 June 1971 on the application of social determined by factors relating to the security schemes to employed persons activity carried on by the persons and their families moving within the concerned and to their nationality. Community (Official Journal, English Freedom of movement for persons is not Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416 ') was restricted exclusively to the employed not applicable. The pursuit of studies by persons referred to in Article 48 of the a minor in a boarding school abroad Treaty. Freedom of establishment could not be regarded as sufficient to (Article 52 et seq.) and freedom to determine his place of residence when his provide services (Article 59 et seq.) are parents were resident in France and principles complementing the principle of entitlement to social security benefits freedom of movement for workers. arose in favour of the father, an Freedom of movement for persons American citizen; the Fund had had no therefore encompasses all the activities opportunity to consider whether such which are directly or indirectly con- entitlement arose in favour of the nected with economic life. The persons mother, a United Kingdom citizen, who concerned must, however, in the absence had declared, when the benefits were of an express provision to the contrary, paid for the first time, that she was not possess the status of Community actively employed in France. nationals.

Treaty. Accordingly, the case would fall 1. The benefit of the provisions of within the scope ratione personae of the Community law concerning freedom relevant provisions of Community law of movement for persons is restricted only if the family allowances were to Community nationals, without payable in favour of Mrs Meade who is prejudice, however, to Article 2 of a United Kingdom citizen. Regulation No 1408/71 which, in the field of social security, extends that As regards the scope ratione maleriae of benefit to stateless persons or refugees the relevant provisions of Community residing within the territory of one of law, it is necessary to look beyond the Member States. Article 48 and to consider the provisions of Regulation No 1408/71 which was 2. Entitlement to family allowances and adopted by the Council pursuant to other social security benefits is Article 51 of the EEC Treaty and governed by the provisions of Article incorporates the measures needed to 51 of the EEC Treaty and its ensure that the exercise by workers of implementing regulations. Article 73 their freedom of movement does not (2) of Regulation No 1408/71 adversely affect their social security provides that a worker subject to rights. French legislation is entitled, in respect of members of his family It is quite clear from Article 73 (2) of residing in the territory of a Member Regulation No 1408/71 that Mr and State other than France, to the family Mrs Meade, on the assumption that they allowances provided for by the fall within the scope of that provision by legislation of the Member State in virtue of Article 2 of the same regu- whose territory those members of the lation, are in any case entitled only to family reside. the benefits payable in the United Kingdom in respect of their child who is 3. Article 48 of the EEC Treaty does -pursuing his studies there.. Moreover, not, : in the case of a recipient of that provision confirms that entitlement family allowances under the French to family allowances, which in social social security scheme who is the security matters is a corollary to freedom father of two children and is himself a of movement, arises in favour of the national of a non-member country, worker and not of the child. The preclude revocation of the right to detailed rules for the application of those family allowances following a Article 73 (2) of Regulation No 1408/71 transfer of residence by one of the which concern in particular the children to the territory of another registration of members of the family Member State. who are resident in a Member State other than France with the competent institution of their place of residence are set out in Article 87 of Regulation (EEC) Ill — Oral procedure No 574/72 (Official Journal, English Special Edition 1972 (I), p. 159 '). At the sitting on 5 April 1984, Richard Meade in person and the Commission of The Commission therefore suggests that the European Communities, represented the answer to the question submitted by Francis Herbert, presented oral should be as follows: argument.

2 That question was raised in the context of proceedings between the Caisse d'Allocations Familiales de la Région Parisienne [Family Allowances Fund for the Paris Region, hereinafter referred to as "the Fund"] and Richard Meade, a United States national established in Paris, where he is self- employed, and his wife, a British national. The dispute concerns the withdrawal of family allowances in respect of the Meades' two sons, both British nationals, and the repayment of sums already paid.

3 Until 1980, the Meades received family allowances in respect of their two sons pursuant to the relevant French provisions under which such allowances are payable "as from the second dependent child residing in France In 1980, the Fund learned that, since 1978, one of the Meades' two sons had

CAISSE D'ALLOCATIONS FAMILIALES v COUPLE MEADE

been attending school in England. Since the specific conditions under which the French provisions allow entitlement to family allowances to be retained in the case of a child studying abroad had not been complied with, the Fund suspended payment of those benefits and claimed repayment from the Meades of the allowances wrongly paid to them.

4 Mr and Mrs Meade, relying upon the principle of freedom of movement for persons and, in particular, on Article 48 of the EEC Treaty, appealed to the Commission de Première Instance du Contentieux de la Sécurité Sociale et de la Mutualité Sociale Agricole, Paris, which considered it necessary to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

"Is the Caisse d'Allocations Familiales entitled, on the basis of Article 48 of the EEC Treaty, to demand repayment of the family allowances paid to the parents of a young man of British nationality on the ground that he is pursuing his studies in England and to suspend payment of the said allowances on the same ground?"

s During the hearing before the Court, Mr Meade contended that it was his wife rather than he who was entitled to family allowances, on the basis of various professional or trade activities in which she has engaged. In that connection, it is sufficient to note that, as regards the division of jurisdiction between the national courts and the Court of Justice, it is for the national court to establish the relevant facts in order to determine whether Mrs Meade is to be regarded as a worker within the meaning of Article 1 (a) of Regulation No 1408/71 and whether, in consequence, that regulation may be applied to her.

9 It should be added, as the Court stated in its judgment of 1 December 1977 (Case 66/77, Kuyken v Rijksdienst voor Arbeidsvoorziening, [1977] ECR 2311), that the position of a person who has gone to another Member State in order to follow a course of study and who, during that period, was not insured under a social security scheme set up for the benefit of employed persons does not come within the scope of the provisions of Articles 48 to 51 of the Treaty. It cannot thus be considered that withdrawal of family allowances payable to the parents of a child in that situation constitutes, as regards the latter, a restriction on the freedom of movement which is guaranteed by Article 48.

io The answer to the question raised should thus be that neither Regulation N o 1408/71 nor Article 48 of the Treaty prevents family allowances from being withdrawn pursuant to national legislation on the ground that a child is pursuing its studies in another Member State, where the parents of the child concerned are nationals of a non-member country or are not employed persons.

Neither ^Regulation No 1408/71 nor Article 48 of the Treaty prevents lamily allowances from being withdrawn pursuant to national legislation on the ground that a child is pursuing its studies in another Member Mate, where the parents of the child concerned are nationals of a non- member country or are not employed persons.

Galmot Everling Kakouris

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 5 July 1984.

J. A. Pompe Y. Galmot Deputy Registrar President of the Third Chamber