Thus for example, the pending Hendrix case, concerns a Dutch frontier worker who worked and lived in the Netherlands. While continuing to work in the Netherlands, he transferred his residence to Belgium. Before his removal he was entitled under Dutch legislation to a benefit for handicapped people which is listed in Annex IIa of Regulation 1408/71 as a non-exportable special non-contributory benefit. Therefore, once Mr Hendrix had left the country, the Dutch competent institution stopped paying that benefit applying the said provisions of Regulation 1408/71. However, as Mr Hendrix continued to be active as a worker in the Netherlands, the ECJ has now been asked whether the withdrawal of the benefit is not contrary to Article 39 or Article 18 EC Treaty.

The Advocate General Kokott, referring almost exclusively to case law on EU citizenship, affirmed that entitlement to a social benefit can, as a matter of principle, be subject to the requirement of a link or attachment to the host Member State. In this case, she argues that the impugned residence condition is evidence of such a link to the social and economic environment of the host Member State from whom the benefit is requested. But in her opinion, in this case the work of a frontier worker is surely evidence of his social and economic attachment to that State.

The case is now pending before the ECJ, but taking into account the ECJ’s previously case law, Mr Hendrix as an active frontier worker may indeed have a chance of winning this case. I will get back with this case when the ECJ will give its judgment.

ECJ was asked whether a student applying for student loan in the UK could invoke the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality laid down in Article 12 EC Treaty.

ECJ stated that a student, during the residence in a host Member State, can rely on the right of equal treatment contained in article 12 EC Treaty. It is not required that a student disposes of the sufficient financial funds during the entire period of his stay. If a student’s financial position changes with the passage of time, this cannot automatically have adverse effects upon his right of residence. Therefore it was unlawful to deny French citizen Dany Bidar access to student loans for maintenance purposes during his studies at University College London. However it is legitimate for a Member State to grant such assistance only to students who have demonstrated a certain degree of integration into the society of that State. The existence of a certain degree of integration may be regarded as established by a finding that the student in question has resided in the host Member State for a certain length of time.

Text of the ECJ judgment
Text of the AG opinion

The ECJ ruled that admittance conditions that “are liable to have greater effect on nationals of other Member States than on Austrian nationals” are forbidden and cannot be justified. Therefore, Austria was obliged to ensure equal access to higher and university education under the same conditions for holders of secondary education diplomas awarded in any Member State. As a consequence, Austrian Universities are now confronted with a large number of German medical students not admitted in Germany.

This judgment was based on the principle of non-discrimination in combination with the right to free movement for education purposes. The ECJ used the Grzelczyk reasoning to strike down all covert forms of discrimination.

Text of the ECJ judgment
Text of the AG opinion