Opinion of Advocate General Van Gerven delivered on 24 June 1992

1 Original language: Dutch.

2 As annexed to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ 1983, L 230, p. 6).

3 Law of 27 June 1969 on the grant of allowances to handicapped pereons (Belgisch Staatsblad of 15 July 1969, p. 6935).

4 Judgment in Case 40/76 Kermaschek v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit [1976] ECR 1669.

5 Part of this paragraph does not appear in the Dutch version printed in the European Court Reports, although it does in the French and German [and English] versions. German was the language of the case.

6 Judgment in Kermaschek, paragraphs 5, 6 and 7.

7 Case 157/84 Frascogna [1985] ECR 1739, paragraph 15.

8 Case 94/84 Deak [1985] ECR 1873, paragraphs 10 to 16.

9 Case 147/87 Zaoui [1987] ECR 5511.

10 See also my Opinion in Case C-18/90 Kziber [1991] ECR I-208.

11 While Article 4 of the 1969 Law imposes nationality and residence conditions, it does not impose conditions relating to family relationship.

12 OJ, English Special Edition 1968(11), p. 475. The amendments made to Regulation No 1612/68 by Regulation (EEC) No 312/76 of 9 February 1976 (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 2) are not relevant to this case.

13 Judgment in Case 35/85 Tissier [1986] ECR 1207, paragraph 9. See also the judgment in Case C-241/89 SARPP [1990] ECR I-4695, paragraph 8, and the following footnote.

14 In particular in the judgments in Case 249/83 Hoeckx [1985] ECR 973, and in Frascogna and Deak.

15 Judgment in Case 316/85 Lebon [1987] ECR 2811, paragraphs 11 and 12.

16 Judgments in Case 207/78 Ministère Public v Even [1979] ECR 2019, paragraph 22, in Case 65/81 Reina [1982] ECR 33, paragraph 12, in Case 261/83 Castelli [1984] ECR 3199, paragraph 11, in Hoeckx, cited above, paragraph 20, in Case 122/84 Scrivner and Cole [1985] ECR 1027, paragraph 24, in Frascogna, cited above, paragraph 20, in Deak, cited above, paragraph 20, in Case 59/85 Reed [1986] ECR 1283, paragraph 26, and in Case 39/86 Lair [1988] ECR 3161, paragraph 21.

17 Judgment in Case 63/76 Inzirillo [1976] ECR 2057, paragraph 21.

18 Paragraphs 15 and 16.

19 Judgments in Case 175/78 Regina v Saunders [1979] ECR 1129, paragraph 11, in Case 180/83 Moser v Land Baden-Württemburg [1984] ECR 2539, paragraph 15, and in Case 298/84 Iorio v Azienda Autonoma delle Ferrovie dello Stato [1986] ECR 247, paragraph 14. See also the next three footnotes.

20 Judgment in Joined Cases 35 and 36/82 Morson and Jhanjan v State of the Netherlands [1982] ECR 3723, paragraphs 15, 16 and 17.

21 Paragraphs 15 and 16.

22 Judgment in Joined Cases C-297/88 and C-197/89 Dzodzi v Belgian State [1990] ECR I-3763, paragraphs 23 to 28.

23 See also mv Opinion of 6 May 1992 in Case C-78/91 Rose Hughes, still pending.

24 Judgment in Ministère Public v Even, cited above, paragraph 21.

25 Its applicability rattene loci is — correctly — not contested.

26 Judgment in Case 32/75 Cristini v SNCF [1975] ECR 1085, paragraphs 14 and 15. The Court held that If the widow and infant children of a national of the Member State in question are entitled to such cards [cards for reduced rail fares] provided that the request had been made by the father Defore his death, the same must apply where the deceased father was a migrant worker and a national of another Member State (paragraph 15).

27 The Court held in paragraph 24 that a requirement that relatives in the ascending line of workers who are nationals of other Member States must have resided in the territory of a Member State for a specified number of years constitutes discrimination contrary to Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68, if that requirement is not also imposedon relatives in the ascending line of workers who are nationals of that Member State.

28 Judgment in Case C-3/90 Bernini [1992] ECR I-1071, paragraph 29. In that case, the Court held that a child of a migrant worker from a Member State was entitled to obtain funding for education on the same conditions as those applying to children of national workers, at least where the migrant worker was still responsible for the maintenance of his child.

29 See the judgment in Case 131/85 Gul [1986] ECR 1573, in which the Court appears to reiterate the views which it expressed in Deak in relation to Article 11 of Regulation No 1612/68.