Report for the Hearing delivered in Case 316/85

I — Facts

1. Marie-Christine Lebon is a French national born on 1 July 1958. It is clear from the documents transmitted to the Court of Justice by the national court that Mrs Lebon has lived in Belgium since her birth. She resides in Courcelles where she lives with her parents and her child. Her father, a migrant worker, who is also a French national, worked in Belgium from 1949 to 1976 and has been in receipt of a miner's retirement pension since October 1977.

2. Mrs Lebon worked in France for two years (1979 to 1981). When she returned to Belgium she had no means of support and was therefore granted the minimum means of subsistence (the minimex) as from 3 May 1982 by the Centre public d'aide sociale (Public Social Welfare Centre), Courcelles (hereinafter referred to as the Courcelles Centre).

3. On 31 March 1983 Mrs Lebon submitted a claim to the Courcelles Centre for the grant of the minimex. Taking the view that hostels are not residential institutions, the Courcelles Centre refused by letter of 18 April 1983 to grant the minimex on the ground that it lacked competence.

4. On appeal by the Courcelles Centre, the Labour Tribunal, Mons, held by judgment of 18 October 1985 that the Public Social Welfare Centre in Liège was territorially competent. It went on to hold that the Courcelles Centre had acted wrongfully in failing to discharge the obligation to forward Mrs Lebon's request for the minimex within three days (Article 7 of the Royal Decree of 30 October 1974) and was therefore liable for any consequent damage, with the result that it is ... necessary to examine whether the Courcelles Centre's omission adversely affected the respondent and in particular whether the Public Social Welfare Centre of Liège would have been required to grant the respondent the minimex if the request had been duly forwarded to it.

5. Taking the view that in order to resolve the dispute it was necessary to interpret the relevant rules of Community law, the cour du travail, Mons, made an order on 18 October 1985 in which it decided, pursuant to Article 177 of the EEC Treaty, to stay the proceedings until the Court of Justice had given a preliminary ruling on the following questions:

6. The order for reference was received at the Court Registry on 24 October 1985.

7. On hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur and the views of the Advocate General, the Court decided to open the oral procedure without any preparatory inquiry.

II — Written observations submitted to the Court

A — First question

1. The Belgian Government points out that if a practical answer is to be given to the first question, it is necessary to begin by specifying the precise content of the two fundamental concepts referred to in this question, namely the concepts of worker and dependent descendant; the only suggestion it makes is that the questions should be examined in the following order: 4, 3, 1 and 2.

2. The Netherlands Government considers that the conditions in which the members of a family of a Community worker may claim equal treatment under Regulation No 1251/70 of the Commission are governed in every respect by Regulation No 1612/68 of the Council; moreover, in order to answer the question whether, in the specific circumstances of the case, Mrs Lebon may derive an indirect right from Article 7 of Regulation No 1612/68 to the grant of the minimex in Belgium, it is necessary to answer two preliminary questions.

3. The Commission points out in the first place that, according to Article 7 of Regulation No 1251/70, the right to equality of treatment, established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68, shall apply also to persons coming under the provisions of this regulation. Next, it observes that Regulation No 1251/70, by virtue of Articles 1 and 3 thereof, applies not only to the worker himself but also to the members of his family, as defined in Article 10 of Regulation No 1612/68.

B — Second question

1. Since it considers that the first question should be answered in the negative, the Netherlands Government considers that it is no longer necessary to answer the second question submitted by the national court.

2. The Commission takes the view that the second question may be regarded as devoid of purpose. It none the less considers it useful to clarify the situation referred to in that question.

C — Third question

1. The Netherlands Government maintains that the term dependent in Article 10 (1) of Regulation No 1612/68 means that the worker must wholly or largely support the descendant.

2. According to the Commission, the question whether a person is dependent on another, that is to say economically dependent as regards his means of support, is essentially a question of fact.

D — Fourth question

1. The Netherlands Government considers that the fact that a Community national moves freely from one Member State to another or evinces the intention to work by registering as a person seeking employment does not confer on him the status of a worker within the meaning of Regulation No 1612/68.

2. The Commission considers that Community law does not require nationals of a Member State wishing to enter, and establish themselves in, the territory of another Member State to show that they hold an offer of employment. Their right to seek employment in another Member State clearly implies that they do not already hold an offer of employment when they enter the territory of that other Member State and initially reside there at least on a temporary basis.

1 Language of the Case: French.