GENERAL NOTICE

In January 2025, this online platform will be integrated into Boomportaal (www.boomportaal.nl), after which this platform will be discontinued. From that moment on, this URL will automatically redirect to Boomportaal.

Search articles of European Employment Law Cases
DOI: 10.5553/EELC/187791072017002001018

European Employment Law CasesAccess_open
ECJ Court Watch

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
Keywords Free movement, Social insurance
DOI 10.5553/EELC/187791072017002001018
Show PDF Show fullscreen
Abstract Statistics Citation
This article has been viewed times.
This article been downloaded 0 times.
Suggested citation
, "ECJ 15 December 2016, joined cases C-401/15 to C-403/15 (Depesme), Free movement, social insurance", European Employment Law Cases, 1, (2017):47-47
Download RIS Download BibTex

    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.

Dit artikel wordt geciteerd in

    • Summary

      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.

    • 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.


Print this article
Contents