The Court of Justice of the European Union has declared that national legislation making the enjoyment of a social benefit conditional on residence in the country concerned is unlawful. In the case decided with judgment dated July 10th, 2025 (Case C‑257/24), the Court of Justice of the European Union affirmed a principle of particular relevance in the field of equal treatment and free movement of workers: school integration assistance for children with disabilities, as provided under national legislation (in this case, German law), may not be denied to children of EU frontier workers solely based on residence in another Member State. The case originates from an appeal lodged by the parents of a minor, a German and Irish citizen residing in Belgium, the daughter of a cross-border worker employed in Germany, who has a mental disability and who had benefited for several years from school assistance provided by the German government. However, for the 2021/2022 school year, the request for renewal of the assistance was rejected because German law requires that beneficiaries of the service must be resident in Germany, and the minor did not reside in the national territory. In its judgment on the merits, the German court confirmed that the assistance did not constitute ‘sickness benefit’, which is also guaranteed to family members of workers under Article 3(1)(a) (a) of Regulation (EU) No 883/2004. Still, it was instead a form of ‘social and medical assistance’, which, according to the express provisions of that Regulation, was excluded from its scope. The minor therefore challenged that decision, and the judge responsible for deciding the case suspended the proceedings and referred the matter to the Court of Justice of the EU to clarify whether: The Court ruled that while the benefit does not qualify as a social security benefit under Regulation 883/2004, it constitutes a “social advantage” under Regulation 492/2011. Conditioning assistance on residence amounts to indirect discrimination against frontier workers, restricting their freedom of movement. Such restrictions must pursue legitimate aims and be proportionate to the objectives they serve. In this instance, the residence condition was found to be disproportionate, as frontier workers contribute to and are connected with the host state’s system. Thus, the CJEU concluded that making school assistance conditional on residence unjustifiably discriminates against frontier workers. In this case, the Court found the residence requirement excessive, since the frontier worker’s financial contributions and substantial connection to the host Member State were enough to justify granting the benefit.
2026 - Morri Rossetti
