Official Journal of the European Union

C series

—

C/2024/5060

(Case C-299/24, Hicindt)

(C/2024/5060)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: OP, TD

Defendant: Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants

Questions referred

1.Is the condition of ‘supporting’ a child, from which is derived the status of family member within the meaning of the provisions of EU law, as applied by the case-law of the Court of Justice in the context of the free movement of workers and of the receipt by a frontier worker of a social advantage linked to the pursuit, by that worker, of an activity as an employed person in a Member State, for the child of his or her spouse or registered partner, with whom the worker has no child-parent relationship, read alone or in conjunction with the principle that the provisions intended to ensure the free movement of workers must be construed broadly, to be interpreted as being fulfilled, and therefore as conferring entitlement to the receipt of the social advantage,

—merely by reason of the marriage or registered partnership between the frontier and one of the child’s parents

—merely by reason of a joint home or household shared by the frontier worker and the child

—merely by reason of the frontier worker’s assumption, in general, of expenditure of whatever kind for the benefit of the child, even when

—it covers needs other than essential or maintenance needs

—it is made to a third party and benefits the child only indirectly

—it is not made in the exclusive or specific interest of the child, but benefits the whole household

—it is only occasional

—it is less than that of the parents

—it is merely insignificant in the light of the child’s needs

—merely by reason of the fact that the expenditure is made from a joint account held by the frontier worker and his or her spouse or registered partner, who is a parent of the child, without regard to the origin of the funds present in the account

—merely by reason of the fact that the child is under 21 years of age?

2.If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, is the condition of ‘support’ to be interpreted as being fulfilled, and therefore as conferring entitlement to the receipt of the social advantage, where two or more of those circumstances are present?

must be interpreted as meaning that where, in the context of a screening procedure carried out under that provision, a third party has provided the competent authority with objective evidence as regards the potential significant effects of that project on the environment, in particular on a species protected under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, as amended by Council Directive 2013/17/EU of 13 May 2013, that authority must ask the developer to provide it with additional information and take that information into account before deciding whether or not an environmental impact assessment is necessary for that project. However, where, despite the observations submitted to that authority by a third party, the competent authority is able to rule out, on the basis of objective evidence, the possibility that the project in question is likely to have significant effects on the environment, that authority may decide that an environmental impact assessment is not necessary, without being required to ask the developer to provide it with additional information.

ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/5060/oj

ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)

—