PE, légalement représentée par ses parents v Städteregion Aachen.

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Court: Court of Justice (European Union)
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:2025:567
• Docket Number: C-257/24
• Date: 10 July 2025

Provisional text

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Tenth Chamber)

10 July 2025 (*)

( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social security – Migrant workers – Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 – Article 3 – Matters covered – Freedom of movement for workers – Article 45 TFEU – Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 – Article 7 – Equal treatment – Social advantages – Disabled minor child of a frontier worker – Integration assistance in the form of school assistance benefits for disabled children – Residence requirement – Proportionality )

In Case C‑257/24,

REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Landessozialgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen (Higher Social Court, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany), made by decision of 8 April 2024, received at the Court on 12 April 2024, in the proceedings

PE, represented by her parents

v

Städteregion Aachen,

THE COURT (Tenth Chamber),

composed of D. Gratsias, President of the Chamber, E. Regan (Rapporteur) and J. Passer, Judges,

Advocate General: J. Richard de la Tour,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

having regard to the written procedure,

after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

– the German Government, by J. Möller and R. Kanitz, acting as Agents,

– the European Commission, by B.-R. Killmann and F. van Schaik, acting as Agents,

having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,

gives the following

Judgment

1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1, and corrigendum OJ 2004 L 200, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 988/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 (OJ 2009 L 284, p. 43) (‘Regulation No 883/2004’), of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1), and of Article 20 TFEU and Article 21(1) TFEU.

2 The request has been made in proceedings between PE, a minor child represented by her parents, and the Städteregion Aachen (metropolitan area of Aachen, Germany) concerning the refusal to grant her integration assistance in the form of school assistance benefits for disabled children.

Legal context

European Union law

Regulation No 883/2004

3 Article 3 of Regulation No 883/2004, which appears in Title I of that regulation, entitled ‘General provisions’, provides:

‘1. This Regulation shall apply to all legislation concerning the following branches of social security:

(a) sickness benefits;

…

3. This Regulation shall also apply to the special non-contributory cash benefits covered by Article 70.

…

5. This Regulation shall not apply to:

(a) social and medical assistance or

…’

4 Article 70 of Regulation No 883/2004, entitled ‘General provision’, in Chapter 9, entitled ‘Special non-contributory cash benefits’, which appears in Title III of that regulation, entitled ‘Special provisions concerning the various categories of benefits’, provides, in paragraph 2(c) thereof:

‘For the purposes of this Chapter, “special non-contributory cash benefits” means those which:

…

(c) are listed in Annex X.’

5 Annex X to that regulation, under the heading ‘Germany’, is worded as follows:

‘(a) Basic subsistence income for the elderly and for persons with reduced earning capacity under Chapter 4 of Book XII of the Social Code;

(b) Benefits to cover subsistence costs under the basic provision for jobseekers unless, with respect to these benefits, the eligibility requirements for a temporary supplement following receipt of unemployment benefit (Article 24(1) of Book II of the Social Code) are fulfilled.’

Regulation No 492/2011

6 Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation No 492/2011 provides:

‘1. A worker who is a national of a Member State may not, in the territory of another Member State, be treated differently from national workers by reason of his nationality in respect of any conditions of employment and work, in particular as regards remuneration, dismissal, and, should he become unemployed, reinstatement or re-employment.

2. He shall enjoy the same social and tax advantages as national workers.’

German law

7 The Neuntes Buch Sozialgesetzbuch (Book IX of the Social Code), entitled ‘Rehabilitation of and participation by people with disabilities’, in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings (‘the SGB IX’), lays down the conditions to which the grant of integration assistance in the form of school assistance benefits for disabled children is subject.

8 Paragraph 101(1) of the SGB IX provides:

‘German nationals who are habitually resident abroad shall not be entitled to integration benefits. Exceptions may be made on a case-by-case basis where there is no alternative owing to a particularly urgent situation, and where it is demonstrated that it is impossible to return to the German territory for one of the following reasons:

1. care or upbringing of a child who must remain abroad for legal reasons;

2. the person concerned is receiving long-term care in an institution or is in urgent need of care; or

3. an act of a public authority.’

9 Paragraph 104(1) of the SGB IX states:

‘The integration assistance benefits shall be determined according to the particularities of each case, including the type of need, personal circumstances, social environment and his or her own abilities and resources …’

The dispute in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling

10 The applicant in the main proceedings, a German and Irish national born in Germany in 2009, lives with her parents in Belgium close to the German border. Her mother, a German national, is employed as a full-time doctor in Aachen (Germany). Her father, an Irish national, was an EU official serving in Maastricht (Netherlands).

11 The applicant in the main proceedings suffers from a mental disability requiring specific care. Since the 2017/2018 school year, she has attended inclusive schools in Aachen, having previously attended a special education school in Eupen (Belgium). At her request, the metropolitan area of Aachen granted her, in accordance with the provisions of the SGB IX, integration assistance in the form of school assistance benefits for disabled children for the 2017/2018 to 2020/2021 school years, bearing the costs of school assistance benefits at the rate initially of 15 hours, then 35 hours, per week.

12 By decision of 9 June 2021, the metropolitan area of Aachen rejected an application for the grant of that integration assistance for the school year 2021/2022, on the ground that the applicant in the main proceedings, who is habitually resident in Belgium, does not satisfy the residence requirement under Article 101(1) of the SGB IX. By decision of 20 August 2021, that authority rejected, on the same ground, the objection brought by the applicant in the main proceedings against the initial rejection decision.

13 By judgment of 25 January 2022, the Sozialgericht Aachen (Social Court, Aachen, Germany) dismissed, on the same ground, the action brought by the applicant in the main proceedings, represented by her parents, against those decisions. That court also held that entitlement to the integration assistance in the form of school assistance benefits for disabled children provided for in the SGB IX could not be based on EU law either, since that right does not fall within the scope of the ‘sickness benefits’ referred to in Article 3(1) of Regulation 883/2004, and Article 3(5)(a) of that regulation expressly provides that that regulation does not apply to ‘social and medical assistance’.

14 The applicant in the main proceedings, represented by her parents, brought an action before the Landessozialgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen (Higher Social Court, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany), which is the referring court, seeking the variation of that judgment and an order that the metropolitan area of Aachen, by amending the decision of 9 June 2021, as confirmed by the decision of 20 August 2021, reimburse her for the costs of accessing school assistance for the period from 1 August 2021 to 30 November 2021, in the amount of EUR 12 782.32, since the German-speaking Community of Belgium had covered the costs of providing school monitoring free of charge for the period from 1 December 2021 to 30 June 2022.

15 The referring court states that, under national law, the action before it should be dismissed. However, it is uncertain as to whether national law is compatible with EU law in that respect.

16 In the first place, that court asks whether the present case falls within the scope of Regulation No...