Corte di giustizia UE n. 883/2022

62020CJ0411 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) 1 August 2022 ( *1 ) (Reference for a preliminary ruling – Citizenship of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] – Freedom of movement of persons – Equal treatment – Directive 2004/38/EC – [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 24(1) and (2) – Social security benefits – [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EC) No 883/2004 – [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 – [OSCURATO:PERSONA] benefits – Exclusion of nationals of other [OSCURATO:PERSONA] who are economically inactive during the first three months of residence in the host [OSCURATO:PERSONA]) [OSCURATO:PERSONA] C‑411/20, REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 267 TFEU from the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA]), made by decision of 20 August 2020, received at the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on 2 September 2020, in the proceedings S v [OSCURATO:PERSONA][OSCURATO:PERSONA] der Bundesagentur für Arbeit, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, L. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA]President, A. Arabadjiev, A. Prechal, K. Jürimäe (Rapporteur), C. Lycourgos, E. Regan, N. Jääskinen and I. Ziemele, Presidents of Chambers, M. Ilešič, F. Biltgen, P.G. Xuereb and N. Wahl, Judges, [OSCURATO:PERSONA]: M. Szpunar, Registrar: A. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], having regard to the written procedure, after considering the observations submitted on behalf of: – the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], by J. Möller and R. Kanitz, acting as Agents, – the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], by J. Pavliš, M. Smolek and J. Vláčil, acting as Agents, – the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], by B. Majczyna, acting as Agent, – the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], by D. Martin and B.-R. Killmann, acting as Agents, after hearing the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] at the sitting on 16 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2021, gives the following [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EC) No 883/2004 of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems ( OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1 and corrigendum at OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1 ) and of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] amending [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC ( OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77 , and corrigendum at OJ 2005 L 197, p. 34 ). 2 The request has been made in proceedings between S, a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] citizen originating in a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] other than the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA], and the [OSCURATO:PERSONA][OSCURATO:PERSONA] der Bundesagentur für Arbeit ([OSCURATO:PERSONA] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA]; ‘the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’) concerning the latter’s rejection of S’s application for family benefits for the period corresponding to the first three months of her residence in [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. Legal context [OSCURATO:PERSONA] law [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 883/2004 3 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1(j), (k) and (z) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 883/2004 contains the following definitions for the purposes of that regulation: ‘(j) “residence” means the place where a person habitually resides; (k) “stay” means temporary residence; … (z) “family benefit” means all benefits in kind or in cash intended to meet family expenses, excluding advances of maintenance payments and special childbirth and adoption allowances mentioned in Annex I.’ 4 As regards the scope ratione personae of that regulation, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2(1) thereof states: ‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA] shall apply to nationals of a [OSCURATO:PERSONA], stateless persons and refugees residing in a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] who are or have been subject to the legislation of one or more [OSCURATO:PERSONA], as well as to the members of their families and to their survivors.’ 5 As regards the material scope of that regulation, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 3(1) thereof provides: ‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA] shall apply to all legislation concerning the following branches of social security: … (j) family benefits.’ 6 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 883/2004 states, under the heading ‘Equality of treatment’: ‘Unless otherwise provided for by this [OSCURATO:PERSONA], persons to whom this [OSCURATO:PERSONA] applies shall enjoy the same benefits and be subject to the same obligations under the legislation of any [OSCURATO:PERSONA] as the nationals thereof.’ 7 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 11 of that regulation lays down the general rules for determining the applicable legislation as follows: ‘1.   Persons to whom this [OSCURATO:PERSONA] applies shall be subject to the legislation of a single [OSCURATO:PERSONA] only. Such legislation shall be determined in accordance with this Title. … 3.   Subject to Articles 12 to 16: (a) a person pursuing an activity as an employed or self-employed person in a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] shall be subject to the legislation of that [OSCURATO:PERSONA]; (b) a civil servant shall be subject to the legislation of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to which the administration employing him/her is subject; (c) a person receiving unemployment benefits in accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 65 under the legislation of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of residence shall be subject to the legislation of that [OSCURATO:PERSONA]; (d) a person called up or recalled for service in the armed forces or for civilian service in a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] shall be subject to the legislation of that [OSCURATO:PERSONA]; (e) any other person to whom subparagraphs (a) to (d) do not apply shall be subject to the legislation of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of residence, without prejudice to other provisions of this [OSCURATO:PERSONA] guaranteeing him/her benefits under the legislation of one or more other [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. …’ [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EC) No 987/2009 8 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 11 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EC) No 987/2009 of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 883/2004 ( OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1 ) provides: ‘1.   Where there is a difference of views between the institutions of two or more [OSCURATO:PERSONA] about the determination of the residence of a person to whom the basic [OSCURATO:PERSONA] applies, these institutions shall establish by common agreement the centre of interests of the person concerned, based on an overall assessment of all available information relating to relevant facts, which may include, as appropriate: (a) the duration and continuity of presence on the territory of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concerned; (b) the person’s situation, including: (i) the nature and the specific characteristics of any activity pursued, in particular the place where such activity is habitually pursued, the stability of the activity, and the duration of any work contract; (ii) his family status and family ties; (iii) the exercise of any non-remunerated activity; (iv) in the case of students, the source of their income; (v) his housing situation, in particular how permanent it is; (vi) the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in which the person is deemed to reside for taxation purposes. 2.   Where the consideration of the various criteria based on relevant facts as set out in paragraph 1 does not lead to agreement between the institutions concerned, the person’s intention, as it appears from such facts and circumstances, especially the reasons that led the person to move, shall be considered to be decisive for establishing that person’s actual place of residence.’ Directive 2004/38 9 Recitals 9, 10, 20 and 21 of Directive 2004/38 state: ‘(9) [OSCURATO:PERSONA] citizens should have the right of residence in the host [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for a period not exceeding three months without being subject to any conditions or any formalities other than the requirement to hold a valid identity card or passport, without prejudice to a more favourable treatment applicable to job-seekers as recognised by the case-law of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice. (10) Persons exercising their right of residence should not, however, become an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the host [OSCURATO:PERSONA] during an initial period of residence. Therefore, the right of residence for [OSCURATO:PERSONA] citizens and their family members for periods in excess of three months should be subject to conditions. … (20) In accordance with the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality, all [OSCURATO:PERSONA] citizens and their family members residing in a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] on the basis of this Directive should enjoy, in that [OSCURATO:PERSONA], equal treatment with nationals in areas covered by the Treaty, subject to such specific provisions as are expressly provided for in the Treaty and secondary law. (21) [OSCURATO:PERSONA], it should be left to the host [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to decide whether it will grant social assistance during the first three months of residence, or for a longer period in the case of job-seekers, to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] citizens other than those who are workers or self-employed persons or who retain that status or their family members, or maintenance assistance for studies, including vocational training, prior to acquisition of the right of permanent residence, to these same persons.’ 10 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 6 of that directive provides: ‘1.   [OSCURATO:PERSONA] citizens shall have the right of residence on the territory of another [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for a period of up to three months without any conditions or any formalities other than the requirement to hold a valid identity card or passport. 2.   The provisions of paragraph 1 shall also apply to family members in possession of a valid passport who are not nationals of a [OSCURATO:PERSONA], accompanying or joining the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] citizen.’ 11 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 14(1) of that directive is worded as follows: ‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA] citizens and their family members shall have the right of residence provided for in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 6, as long as they do not become an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the host [OSCURATO:PERSONA].’ 12 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 24 of that directive: ‘1.   Subject to such specific provisions as are expressly provided for in the Treaty and secondary law, all [OSCURATO:PERSONA] citizens residing on the basis of this Directive in the territory of the host [OSCURATO:PERSONA] shall enjoy equal treatment with the nationals of that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] within the scope of the Treaty. The benefit of this right shall be extended to family members who are not nationals of a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and who have the right of residence or permanent residence. 2.   By way of derogation from paragraph 1, the host [OSCURATO:PERSONA] shall not be obliged to confer entitlement to social assistance during the first three months of residence or, where appropriate, the longer period provided for in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 14(4)(b), nor shall it be obliged, prior to acquisition of the right of permanent residence, to grant maintenance aid for studies, including vocational training, consisting in student grants or student loans to persons other than workers, self-employed persons, persons who retain such status and members of their families.’ [OSCURATO:PERSONA] law 13 Paragraph 62 of the Einkommensteuergesetz (Law on [OSCURATO:PERSONA]), in the version published on 8 October 2009 (BGBl. 2009 I, p. 3366), as amended by the Gesetz gegen illegale Beschäftigung und Sozialleistungsmissbrauch (Law against illegal work and abuse of social benefits, BGBl. 2019 I, p. 1066), and entered into force on 18 July 2019 (‘the EStG’), reads as follows: ‘(1) 1 The following persons shall be entitled to family benefits in respect of children within the meaning of Paragraph 63 of the present law: 1. persons whose permanent residence or habitual residence is within the national territory, … 2 To be able to claim family benefits under sentence 1, the person entitled must be identified by means of the identification number allocated to him or her … 3 The subsequent allocation of an identification number shall have retroactive effect to the months during which the conditions referred to in sentence 1 are met. (1a) 1 If a national of another [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] or a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to which the Agreement on the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] applies establishes his or her permanent residence or habitual residence within the national territory, he or she shall not be entitled to claim family benefits for the first three months following establishment of that permanent residence or habitual residence. 2 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] rule shall not apply if that national proves that he or she is in receipt of national income in accordance with points 1 to 4 of sentence 1 of Paragraph 2(1), with the exception of income referred to in point 2 of sentence 1 of Paragraph 19(1). 3 Following expiry of the period referred to in sentence 1, that individual shall be entitled to claim family benefits, unless the conditions laid down in Paragraph 2(2) or (3) of the [Gesetz über die allgemeine Freizügigkeit von Unionsbürgern (Law on freedom of movement of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] citizens)] are not met or only the conditions laid down in point 1a of Paragraph 2(2) of the Law on freedom of movement of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] citizens are met without any of the other conditions laid down in Paragraph 2(2) of that law having been met previously. 4 The examination to determine whether the eligibility conditions for family benefits are met in accordance with the second sentence shall be at the sole discretion of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] … 5 Where, in such a case, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] rejects an application for family benefits, it must notify its decision to the competent immigration authority. 6 Where the applicant has used falsified or altered documents or deception to suggest that he or she is eligible to claim family benefits, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] shall immediately advise the competent immigration authority.’ The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling 14 The applicant in the main proceedings, S, is the mother of three children born in 2003, 2005 and 2010 respectively. V, her spouse, is the father of those children. Those parents and their children are nationals of a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] other than the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 15 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2015, S submitted an initial application for family benefits for her three children to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. That body granted that application by decision of 13 May 2015 and started to pay her those benefits on a regular basis, until 3 June 2016. On the latter date, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] decided to withdraw its decision of 13 May 2015, to cease paying those benefits to S with effect from May 2016 and to recover from S the family benefits paid in respect of that latter month. That decision followed the automatic deregistration, by the registration authority, of S and her three children from their address in Bremerhaven ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]), on the ground that their dwelling was empty. 16 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2017, S lodged an application for family benefits for two of her three children to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA]Westfalen ([OSCURATO:PERSONA] for [OSCURATO:PERSONA][OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA]), indicating an address in Herne ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]). Letters sent by that agency to the address indicated were, however, returned to it with the indication ‘addressee unknown’. By decision of 1 August 2018, that agency then rejected S’s application on the ground that she did not have her permanent or habitual residence in [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 17 At the end of October 2019, S lodged a new application to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for her three children for the period from 1 August 2019. 18 By decision of 27 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2019, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] rejected that application. That agency found that S, V and their children had resided in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] since 19 August 2019, that date corresponding to their entry onto the territory of that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] from their [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of origin and their taking up residence in an apartment in Bremerhaven ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]). [OSCURATO:PERSONA], that agency took the view that S had not received national income during the first three months after taking up residence in [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. That agency therefore decided that she did not meet the conditions laid down in Paragraph 62(1a) of the EStG for entitlement to family benefits for that period. 19 By decision of 6 April 2020, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] rejected the complaint made by S against its decision of 27 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2019, thereby confirming that decision. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] took the view that S had not been in gainful employment and that work V had undertaken during the period from 5 November 2019 to 12 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2019 was minor. 20 S brought an action before the referring court, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA]), requesting that the decision to reject her family benefits application be annulled and that the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] be ordered to pay family benefits for the months of August to October 2019. 21 According to the referring court, in the first place, the family benefits fall within, in [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the concept of ‘family benefits’ within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 3(1)(j) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 883/2004, read in conjunction with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1(z) of that regulation. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] benefits are funded not by the beneficiaries’ contributions, but by tax. The family benefits are granted to beneficiaries on the basis of a legally defined situation, regardless of any income requirement, and without any individual and discretionary assessment of the beneficiaries’ personal needs. Those benefits are intended to meet family expenses. 22 In the second place, the referring court observes that Paragraph 62(1a) of the EStG, resulting from a legislative amendment made in July 2019, applies different treatment for a national of a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] other than the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] who establishes his or her permanent residence or habitual residence in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] national who establishes his or her permanent residence or habitual residence in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] following a period of residence in another [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. Pursuant to that provision, nationals of another [OSCURATO:PERSONA], such as S, are refused entitlement to family benefits during the first three months of their residence where they do not provide proof that they were in gainful employment in [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. In contrast, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] nationals are entitled to such benefits as from those first three months even where they are not in gainful employment. 23 In that regard, the referring court states that, in the draft law which led to the addition of subparagraph 1a to Paragraph 62 of the EStG, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] legislature considered that that difference in treatment was compatible with EU law, as it would avoid an influx of nationals from other [OSCURATO:PERSONA] that would place an unreasonable burden on the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] social security system. That difference in treatment is, moreover, justified in the light of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 24(2) of Directive 2004/38, given that the family benefits granted to nationals of a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] other than the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] who are not in gainful employment in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] have the same effect on the public finances of that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] as the grant of social benefits to those nationals. That being said, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] legislature did not explicitly address any potential effect of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 883/2004 in that draft law. Lastly, through reference to the judgment of 14 June 2016, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ( C‑308/14 , EU:C:2016:436 ), the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] legislature justified that unequal treatment by the need to protect the finances of the host [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. 24 In the third place, the referring court states that the question whether the family benefits at issue in the main proceedings fall within the concept of ‘social assistance’, within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 24(2) of Directive 2004/38, is, however, the subject of doctrinal debate. Thus, it is argued inter alia that those family benefits are not covered by that concept, but constitute, as ‘family benefits’, within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 3(1)(j) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 883/2004, read in conjunction with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1(z) thereof, social security benefits in the strict sense of the term, since they are not means-tested. It is true that, in such a case, in accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 883/2004, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is competent to determine the conditions for granting family benefits to nationals of other [OSCURATO:PERSONA] resident in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] not in gainful employment there. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], that regulation lays down, in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4, an obligation to ensure equal treatment under which nationals of another [OSCURATO:PERSONA] must be subject to the same conditions of entitlement as those which apply to nationals of that [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. That regulation does not contain any provision allowing for a difference in treatment such as that observed in the present case. 25 Ultimately, the outcome of the dispute in the main proceedings depends, according to the referring court, on whether the direct discrimination established by Paragraph 62(1a) of the EStG is precluded by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 883/2004 or whether it may be justified on the basis of the derogation from the principle of equal treatment referred to in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 24(2) of Directive 2004/38. 26 In those circumstances, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘[OSCURATO:PERSONA] 24 of Directive [2004/38] and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] [No 883/2004] be interpreted as precluding legislation of a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] under which a national of another [OSCURATO:PERSONA], who establishes a permanent residence or habitual residence in the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concerned and does not prove that he has national income from agriculture and forestry, business, employment or self-employment, has no entitlement to family benefits within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 3(1)(j) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] [No 883/2004], in conjunction with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1(z) thereof, for the first three months of establishing a permanent residence or habitual residence, whilst a national of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] concerned, who is in the same situation, does have an entitlement to family benefits within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 3(1)(j) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] [No 883/2004], in conjunction with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1(z) thereof, without proving national income from agriculture and forestry, business, employment or self-employment?’ Consideration of the question referred 27 By its question, the referring court asks, in essence, whether [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 883/2004 and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 24 of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] under which a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] citizen, who is a national of another [OSCURATO:PERSONA], who has established his or her habitual residence on the territory of the first [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and who is economically inactive in so far as he or she is not in gainful employment in that [OSCURATO:PERSONA], is refused an entitlement to ‘family benefits’, within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 3(1)(j) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 883/2004, read in conjunction with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1(z) thereof, during the first three months of his or her residence in the territory of that [OSCURATO:PERSONA], whereas an economically inactive national of that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is entitled to such benefits, including during the first three months following his or her return to the same [OSCURATO:PERSONA] after having made use, under EU law, of his or her right to move and reside in another [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. Preliminary observations 28 In the first place, according to settled case-law of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the status of citizen of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is destined to be the fundamental status of nationals of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], enabling those among such nationals who find themselves in the same situation to enjoy the same treatment in law irrespective of their nationality, subject to such exceptions as are expressly provided for in that regard (see, to that effect, judgments of 20 September 2001, Grzelczyk, C‑184/99 , EU:C:2001:458 , paragraph 31 , and of 15 July 2021, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for Communities in [OSCURATO:PERSONA], C‑709/20 , EU:C:2021:602 , paragraph 62 ). 29 Every citizen of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] may therefore rely on the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality laid down in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 18 TFEU, provided for in other TFEU provisions, in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 883/2004 and in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 24 of Directive 2004/38, in all situations falling within the scope ratione materiae of EU law. Those situations include, inter alia, the exercise of the freedom to move and reside within the territory of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] conferred by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 21 TFEU, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down by the Treaties and the measures adopted pursuant to them (see, to that effect, judgments of 20 September 2001, Grzelczyk, C‑184/99 , EU:C:2001:458 , paragraphs 32 and 33 ; of 21 February 2013, N., C‑46/12 , EU:C:2013:97 , paragraph 28 ; and of 15 July 2021, A (Public health care), C‑535/19 , EU:C:2021:595 , paragraphs 40 and 42 ). 30 Directive 2004/38 lays down such limitations and conditions. That directive introduced a gradual system as regards the right of residence in the host [OSCURATO:PERSONA], which reproduces, in essence, the stages and conditions laid down in the various instruments of EU law and case-law preceding that directive and culminates in the right of permanent residence (judgment of 21 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2011, Ziolkowski and Szeja, C‑424/10 and C‑425/10 , EU:C:2011:866 , paragraph 38 ). 31 As regards the first three months of residence in the host [OSCURATO:PERSONA], to which the question referred for a preliminary ruling relates, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 6(1) of that directive provides that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] citizens have the right of residence on the territory of another [OSCURATO:PERSONA] for a period of up to three months without any conditions or any formalities other than the requirement to hold a valid identity card or passport. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 14(1) of that directive maintains that right as long as [OSCURATO:PERSONA] citizens and their family members do not become an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the host [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (see, to that effect, judgments of 21 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2011, Ziolkowski and Szeja, C‑424/10 and C‑425/10 , EU:C:2011:866 , paragraph 39 , and of 25 February 2016, García-Nieto and Others, C‑299/14 , EU:C:2016:114 , paragraph 42 ). 32 Therefore, a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] citizen, even economically inactive, has, in compliance with the conditions set out in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 6(1) of Directive 2004/38, read in conjunction with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 14(1) thereof, a right of residence of three months in a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of which he or she is not a national. 33 In the present case, it is apparent from the request for a preliminary ruling that, during the first three months of her residence in [OSCURATO:PERSONA], S was legally resident under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 6(1) of Directive 2004/38, read in conjunction with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 14(1) thereof. 34 In the second place, it is apparent from the request for a preliminary ruling that the dispute in the main proceedings concerns the grant, by the host [OSCURATO:PERSONA], of family benefits, within the meaning of the legislation of that [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. In that regard, it must be borne in mind that benefits that are granted automatically to families meeting certain objective criteria relating in particular to their size, income and capital resources must be regarded as ‘family benefits’, within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 3(1)(j) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 883/2004, read in conjunction with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1(z) thereof, without any individual and discretionary assessment of personal needs, and are intended to meet family expenses (see, to that effect, judgments of 14 June 2016, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA], C‑308/14 , EU:C:2016:436 , paragraph 60 , and of 21 June 2017, [OSCURATO:PERSONA], C‑449/16 , EU:C:2017:485 , paragraph 22 ). 35 It is also apparent from the request for a preliminary ruling that that is the case with regard to the family benefits at issue in the main proceedings, since they are granted to beneficiaries on the basis of a legally defined situation, which is independent of their personal needs, and that their grant is intended not to guarantee their means of subsistence, but to meet family expenses. 36 In addition, it must be borne in mind that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 11(3)(e) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 883/2004 lays down a ‘conflict rule’ intended to determine the national legislation applicable to the receipt of the social security benefits listed in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 3(1) of that regulation, which include family benefits, which may be claimed by all persons other than those referred to in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 11(3)(a) to (d) of that regulation, that is to say, inter alia, economically inactive persons. It follows from the application of that rule that the latter persons are, in principle, subject to the law of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in which they reside (see, to that effect, judgments of 14 June 2016, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA], C‑308/14 , EU:C:2016:436 , paragraph 63 , and of 15 July 2021, A (Public health care), C‑535/19 , EU:C:2021:595 , paragraph 45 ). [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1(j) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 883/2004, the concept of ‘residence’ means, for the purposes of the application of that regulation, the place where the person concerned habitually resides. 37 In the present case, the referring court states that S and her family had established their habitual residence in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] during the three-month period at issue in the main proceedings. Being economically inactive, S appears therefore to fall within, in accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 11(3)(e) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 883/2004, read in conjunction with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1(z) and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 3(1)(j) of that regulation, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] legislation as regards the grant of family benefits. 38 It is with the benefit of those preliminary clarifications that it must be determined whether, where he or she is lawfully resident under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 6(1) of Directive 2004/38, read in conjunction with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 14(1) of that directive, an economically inactive [OSCURATO:PERSONA] citizen may rely on the principle of equal treatment with nationals of the host [OSCURATO:PERSONA] who are economically inactive, who return to that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] after having made use, under EU law, of their right to move and reside in another [OSCURATO:PERSONA], for the purposes of the grant of family benefits, within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 3(1)(j) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 883/2004, read in conjunction with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1(z) of that regulation. Interpretation of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 883/2004 and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 24 of Directive 2004/38 39 As is apparent from paragraph 27 above, the question referred concerns the interpretation of both [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 883/2004 and [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 24 of Directive 2004/38, in so far as those two provisions set out the principle of equal treatment in their respective field of application. 40 In so far as that question is related, in particular, to the determination of the scope of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 24(2) of Directive 2004/38, it is necessary to determine the scope of that provision before examining that of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 883/2004. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 24 of Directive 2004/38 41 [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 24(1) of Directive 2004/38 provides that all [OSCURATO:PERSONA] citizens residing on the basis of that directive in the territory of the host [OSCURATO:PERSONA] are to enjoy equal treatment with the nationals of that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] within the scope of the Treaty. 42 The principle of equal treatment thus benefits any [OSCURATO:PERSONA] citizen whose residence in the territory of the host [OSCURATO:PERSONA] complies with the conditions laid down in that directive (see, to that effect, judgments of 11 November 2014, Dano, C‑333/13 , EU:C:2014:2358 , paragraph 69 , and of 25 February 2016, García-Nieto and Others, C‑299/14 , EU:C:2016:114 , paragraph 38 and the case-law cited). 43 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 24(2) of Directive 2004/38 allows a derogation from the principle of equal treatment enjoyed by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] citizens other than workers, self-employed persons, persons who retain such status and members of their families who reside within the territory of the host [OSCURATO:PERSONA], by permitting that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] not to confer entitlement to social assistance, in particular for the first three months of residence (judgment of 19 September 2013, Brey, C‑140/12 , EU:C:2013:565 , paragraph 56 and the case-law cited). 44 The host [OSCURATO:PERSONA] may therefore rely on the derogation in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 24(2) of Directive 2004/38 in order to refuse to grant a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] citizen who exercises his or her right of residence in the territory of that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] social assistance during the first three months of that residence (see, to that effect, judgment of 25 February 2016, García-Nieto and Others, C‑299/14 , EU:C:2016:114 , paragraph 43 and the case-law cited). 45 It is therefore necessary to determine whether the family benefits at issue in the main proceedings constitute ‘social assistance’ within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 24(2) of Directive 2004/38. 46 In that regard, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has already held that the concept of ‘social assistance’, within the meaning of the latter provision, refers to all assistance schemes established by the public authorities, whether at national, regional or local level, to which recourse may be had by an individual who does not have resources sufficient to meet his or her own basic needs and those of his or her family and who by reason of that fact may, during his or her period of residence, become a burden on the public finances of the host [OSCURATO:PERSONA] which could have consequences for the overall level of assistance which may be granted by that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (judgments of 19 September 2013, Brey, C‑140/12 , EU:C:2013:565 , paragraph 61 , and of 11 November 2014, Dano, C‑333/13 , EU:C:2014:2358 , paragraph 63 ). 47 As has been pointed out in paragraph 35 of the present judgment, the family benefits at issue in the main proceedings are granted independently of the individual needs of the beneficiary and are not intended to cover his or her means of subsistence. 48 Such benefits do not, therefore, as the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has observed in point 54 of his [OSCURATO:PERSONA], fall within the concept of ‘social assistance’ within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 24(2) of Directive 2004/38. 49 In those circumstances, it remains to be ascertained whether, as the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] suggested in its written observations, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 24(2) of Directive 2004/38 must, in the light of its ratio legis , be interpreted as meaning that, as regards the grant of benefits other than ‘social assistance’ within the meaning of that provision, that article nevertheless allows the host [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to derogate from the equal treatment which [OSCURATO:PERSONA] citizens lawfully residing in its territory must, in principle, receive, under [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 6(1) of that directive, read in conjunction with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 14(1) thereof. 50 To that end, it must first be recalled that, as a derogation from the principle of equal treatment laid down in the first paragraph of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 18 TFEU, of which [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 24(1) of Directive 2004/38 is merely a specific expression, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 24(2) must be interpreted strictly, and in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty, including those relating to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] citizenship (see, to that effect, judgments of 21 February 2013, N., C‑46/12 , EU:C:2013:97 , paragraph 33 , and of 6 October 2020, [OSCURATO:PERSONA], C‑181/19 , EU:C:2020:794 , paragraph 60 ). 51 Second, according to settled case-law of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], it should be borne in mind that, in interpreting a provision of EU law, it is necessary to consider not only its wording, but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part (judgment of 6 October 2020, [OSCURATO:PERSONA], C‑181/19 , EU:C:2020:794 , paragraph 61 and the case-law cited). 52 First of all, as regards [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 24(2) of Directive 2004/38, there is nothing in the wording of that provision to suggest that, by that provision, the EU legislature intended to allow the host [OSCURATO:PERSONA] to derogate from the principle of equal treatment to which [OSCURATO:PERSONA] citizens legally resident in its territory must in principle be entitled in respect of benefits other than social assistance. On the contrary, as the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] observed in point 57 of his [OSCURATO:PERSONA], it is clear from that provision that it concerns only social assistance. 53 Next, as regards the regulatory context of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 24(2) of Directive 2004/38, it should be recalled that, as is apparent from paragraph 31 above, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 14(1) of that directive maintains the right of residence of up to three months as long as [OSCURATO:PERSONA] citizens and their family members ‘do not become an unreasonable burden on the social assistance system of the host [OSCURATO:PERSONA]’. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 14 thus supports the interpretation that the possibility of derogating from the principle of equal treatment, on the basis of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 24(2) of Directive 2004/38, is limited to social assistance and that it cannot extend to social security benefits. 54 Finally, that interpretation is consistent with the objective of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 24(2) of Directive 2004/38, which aims, according to recital 10 of that directive, to maintain the financial balance not of the social security system of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] but of their ‘social assistance system’. 55 It follows that, as the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] observed, in essence, in point 62 of his [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the derogation from the principle of equal treatment provided for in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 24(2) of Directive 2004/38 is not applicable to a situation in which, during the first three months of his or her residence in the host [OSCURATO:PERSONA], a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] citizen does not seek ‘social assistance’, within the meaning of that provision, but rather ‘family benefits’, within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 3(1)(j) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 883/2004, read in conjunction with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1(z) of that regulation. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 883/2004 56 As a preliminary point, it should be recalled that a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] citizen who is economically inactive and has transferred his or her habitual residence to the host [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is subject, in accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 11(3)(e) of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 883/2004, to the legislation of that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] as regards the grant of social security benefits. 57 In that regard, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has already held that that provision is intended not only to prevent the concurrent application of a number of national legislative systems to a given situation and the complications which may ensue, but also to ensure that persons covered by that regulation are not left without social security cover because there is no legislation which is applicable to them (judgments of 14 June 2016, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA], C‑308/14 , EU:C:2016:436 , paragraph 64 , and of 15 July 2021, A (Public health care), C‑535/19 , EU:C:2021:595 , paragraph 46 ). 58 That being said, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 883/2004 does not set up a common social security scheme, but allows different national social security schemes to exist and its sole objective is to ensure the coordination of those schemes in order to guarantee the effective exercise of the freedom of movement of persons. Its provisions, such as [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 11(3)(e) thereof, are not, therefore, intended to determine the substantive conditions for entitlement to social security benefits (see, to that effect, judgment of 14 June 2016, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA], C‑308/14 , EU:C:2016:436 , paragraphs 65 and 67 ). While the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] thus remain competent to determine in their legislation the conditions for the grant of those benefits, that competence must however be exercised in compliance with EU law (see, to that effect, judgment of 11 April 2013, Jeltes and Others, C‑443/11 , EU:C:2013:224 , paragraph 59 ). 59 In that regard, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 883/2004 gives specific expression to the principle of equal treatment with regard to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] citizens who rely, in the host [OSCURATO:PERSONA], on the social security benefits referred to in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 3(1) of that regulation (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 July 2021, A (Public health care), C‑535/19 , EU:C:2021:595 , paragraph 40 ). 60 In accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4, unless otherwise provided for by [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 883/2004, persons to whom that regulation applies are to enjoy the same benefits and are to be subject to the same obligations under the legislation of any [OSCURATO:PERSONA] as the nationals thereof. 61 As the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] observed in point 71 of his [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 883/2004 does not contain any provision which would allow the host [OSCURATO:PERSONA] of a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] citizen, who is a national of another [OSCURATO:PERSONA] lawfully resident in the first [OSCURATO:PERSONA], to operate, in the light of the fact that that citizen is economically inactive, a difference in treatment between that citizen and its own nationals as regards the conditions for the grant of ‘family benefits’ within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 3(1)(j) of that regulation, read in conjunction with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1(z) thereof. [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of that regulation precludes a measure which applies such a difference in treatment. 62 Admittedly, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] has already ruled that there is nothing to prevent the granting of benefits falling within the scope of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 883/2004 to economically inactive [OSCURATO:PERSONA] citizens being made subject to the requirement that those citizens fulfil the conditions for possessing a right to reside lawfully under Directive 2004/38 in the host [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (see, to that effect, judgments of 19 September 2013, Brey, C‑140/12 , EU:C:2013:565 , paragraph 44 ; of 11 November 2014, Dano, C‑333/13 , EU:C:2014:2358 , paragraph 83 ; and of 14 June 2016, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] v [OSCURATO:PERSONA], C‑308/14 , EU:C:2016:436 , paragraph 68 ). 63 That being said, a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] citizen residing in the territory of the host [OSCURATO:PERSONA] pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 6(1) of Directive 2004/38, read in conjunction with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 14(1) thereof, is, as is apparent from paragraphs 31 to 33 of the present judgment, lawfully resident there, within the meaning of that directive. 64 It follows that such a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] citizen benefits from the principle of equal treatment with the nationals of that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] laid down in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 883/2004, including if he or she is economically inactive during the first three months of his or her residence in that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] pursuant to the provisions of Directive 2004/38 referred to in the preceding paragraph. 65 It results from the foregoing considerations that an economically inactive [OSCURATO:PERSONA] citizen who resides, pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 6(1) of Directive 2004/38, read in conjunction with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 14(1) thereof, in the territory of a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] other than that of which he or she is a national and who has established his or her habitual residence in that territory may rely, in the host [OSCURATO:PERSONA], on the principle of equal treatment, laid down in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 883/2004, for the purposes of obtaining family benefits, within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 3(1)(j) of that regulation, read in conjunction with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1(z) thereof. 66 Consequently, since [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 883/2004 specifies the principle of equal treatment as regards access to such benefits, it is necessary to examine whether national legislation such as that referred to in paragraph 27 of the present judgment constitutes a difference in treatment contrary to that provision. The existence of a difference in treatment contrary to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 883/2004 67 Legislation of the host [OSCURATO:PERSONA] which excludes entitlement to family benefits, within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 883/2004, to a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] citizen even though he or she is lawfully resident, pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 6(1) of Directive 2004/38, read in conjunction with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 14(1) thereof, in the territory of that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and even though he or she has established his or her habitual residence there, on the ground that that citizen is economically inactive, whereas that same [OSCURATO:PERSONA] grants such benefits to its own nationals, even if they are economically inactive, as soon as they return to that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] after having exercised their right to move and reside in the territory of another [OSCURATO:PERSONA] under EU law, constitutes direct discrimination of a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] citizen. 68 As the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] observed in point 73 of his [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and in the light of what has been stated in paragraph 61 above, such discrimination cannot, in the absence of any derogation expressly provided for in [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 883/2004, be justified. 69 [OSCURATO:PERSONA], [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 883/2004 must be interpreted as precluding the host [OSCURATO:PERSONA] from adopting legislation such as that referred to in paragraph 67 above. 70 It must, however, be stated that a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] citizen, who is economically inactive and who claims, in the host [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the application of the principle of equal treatment enshrined in that article as regards the conditions for the grant of family benefits, within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 883/2004, must, pursuant to [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 2(1) of that regulation, read in conjunction with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1(j) thereof, have established, during the first three months in which he or she receives, in that [OSCURATO:PERSONA], a residence permit in accordance with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 6(1) of that regulation, read in conjunction with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 14(1) thereof, his or her habitual residence in that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and not be resident there temporarily, within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1(k) of that regulation. 71 In that regard, first, [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 11 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 987/2009, entitled ‘Elements for determining residence’, identifies, in paragraph 1, a number of elements for the purposes of determining the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] in which the person concerned resides. Paragraph 2 of that article states that the concept of ‘residence’, within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 883/2004, means the ‘actual’ residence of that person. 72 Second, in accordance with the case-law of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], the concept of ‘habitual residence’ essentially reflects a question of fact submitted for assessment by the national court in the light of all the particular circumstances of the case. In that regard, it should be noted that the condition that a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] citizen such as referred to in paragraph 70 above must have transferred his or her habitual residence to the territory of the host [OSCURATO:PERSONA] implies that he or she has manifested his or her intention to establish, in actual fact, the habitual centre of his or her interests in that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and that he or she shows that his or her presence on the territory of that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] demonstrates a sufficient degree of stability, which distinguishes it from temporary residence (see, by analogy, judgment of 25 November 2021, IB (Habitual residence of a spouse – Divorce), C‑289/20 , EU:C:2021:955 , paragraph 58 ). 73 In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred is as follows: – [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 883/2004 must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] under which a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] citizen, who is a national of another [OSCURATO:PERSONA], who has established his or her habitual residence on the territory of the first [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and who is economically inactive in so far as he or she is not in gainful employment in that [OSCURATO:PERSONA], is refused an entitlement to ‘family benefits’, within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 3(1)(j) of that regulation, read in conjunction with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1(z) thereof, during the first three months of his or her residence in the territory of that [OSCURATO:PERSONA], whereas an economically inactive national of that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is entitled to such benefits, including during the first three months following his or her return to the same [OSCURATO:PERSONA] after having made use, under EU law, of his or her right to move and reside in another [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. – [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 24(2) of Directive 2004/38 must be interpreted as meaning that it is not applicable to such legislation. Costs 74 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the [OSCURATO:PERSONA], other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable. On those grounds, the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] ([OSCURATO:PERSONA]) hereby rules: [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 4 of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EC) No 883/2004 of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] under which a [OSCURATO:PERSONA] citizen, who is a national of another [OSCURATO:PERSONA], who has established his or her habitual residence on the territory of the first [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and who is economically inactive in so far as he or she is not in gainful employment in that [OSCURATO:PERSONA], is refused an entitlement to ‘family benefits’, within the meaning of [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 3(1)(j) of that regulation, read in conjunction with [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 1(z) thereof, during the first three months of his or her residence in the territory of that [OSCURATO:PERSONA], whereas an economically inactive national of that [OSCURATO:PERSONA] is entitled to such benefits, including during the first three months following his or her return to the same [OSCURATO:PERSONA] after having made use, under EU law, of his or her right to move and reside in another [OSCURATO:PERSONA]. [OSCURATO:PERSONA] 24(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the [OSCURATO:PERSONA] amending [OSCURATO:PERSONA] (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that it is not applicable to such legislation. [Signatures] ( *1 ) Language of the case: [OSCURATO:PERSONA].