1. Hendrix and Exporting SNCBs
Lize Glas

2. Introduction 1. Facts 2. Reference for a Preliminary Ruling
3. CJEU’s Preliminary Ruling
4. Dutch Court’s Judgment
5. Conclusion

3. 1. Facts
Disablement Assistance Act for Handicapped Young Persons (Wajong)
‘entitlement to … shall end … on the first day of the month following that in which the disabled young person took up residence outside [NL]’ (Article 17(1))
Exception: when ending the entitlement to the benefit would lead to an ‘unacceptable degree of unfairness’ (Article 17(7)
Hendrix’ situation
Moved to Belgium; continued to work in NL
Lost entitlement to the Wajong benefit 
Lost employment in NL

4. 2. Reference for a Preliminary Ruling
Q1: Possible to rely on Article 39 EC (now 45 TFEU) as implemented by Reg 1612/68 (now 883/04) ?
‘[f]reedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Union’
Q2: If so, does Article 39 EC preclude the termination of the payment to a person in Hendrix’ situation of the Wajong because he left NL?

5. 3. CJEU’s Preliminary Ruling (C-287/05)
Interpret Reg 1612/68 (now 883/04) in light of Article 42 EC (now 48 TFEU)
‘to contribute to the establishment of the greatest possible freedom of movement for workers’
 Residence requirement only applicable when ‘objectively justified and proportionate to the objective pursued’
Residence requirement is objectively justified, unless it ‘entails an infringement of the rights [deriving from] the freedom of movement for workers which goes beyond what is required to achieve the legitimate objective pursued by the national legislation’

6. 4. Dutch Court’s Ruling
Export prohibition not applied to Hendrix’ case because the prohibition constituted a serious obstacle to the right of free movement for workers

7. 5. Conclusion
Illustration of the importance of general principles of EU law
Illustration of the consequences of general principles of EU law for a concrete case
QUESTIONS?