1. Hendrix and Exporting SNCBs Lize Glas 1

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

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 3

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? 4

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’ 5

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 6

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 7 QUESTIONS?