1. In its first plea, the Commission asked the Court to declare that by making the right of residence of citizens of the European Union subject to the requirement that they have personal resources, the Kingdom of Belgium had failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18 EC and Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence. According to this Directive, Union citizens shall have the right of residence, provided that they themselves and the members of their families are covered by sickness insurance and have sufficient resources to avoid becoming a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during their period of residence. Belgian administrative practice in this respect interpreted the Directive strictly and accepted only financial resources that were personal or when they were coming from a person who was bound by a legal obligation to support the Union citizen financially, such as family members. Other sources, such as financial support by a partner, were not accepted.

The Commission considered this interpretation as breaching Community legislation and being disproportionate as the Directive does not require the sufficient resources to be personal or coming from the family and that it is irrelevant whether the resources are personal or coming from any other source. The Court has upheld the Commission's opinion. It has stressed that the requirement that the income come from a person connected with the beneficiary by a legal link is disproportionate in that it goes beyond what is necessary to achieve the purpose of Directive 90/364/EEC which is the protection of the public finances in the host Member State.

It ruled that, by excluding the income of a partner residing in the host Member State in the absence of an agreement concluded before a notary and containing an assistance clause, Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18 EC and Directive 90/364/EEC. 2. In its second plea, the Commission asked the Court to declare that the Belgian legislation and administrative practice which provides for automatic expulsion of Union citizens who have failed to produce within the prescribed period the documents required for the issue of a residence permit, breaches Community rights of Union citizens and in particular Directive 90/364/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 93/96/EEC and 90/365/EEC. According to the Commission's submission, a Union citizen can only be deported, other than in the case of decisions on grounds of public policy, public security or public health, if he/she does not meet the conditions laid down by Community law for the grant of a right of residence or no longer meets those conditions.

The Commission stressed that the fact that the Union citizen did not comply with the necessary administrative requirements for the issue of a residence permit does not necessarily mean that he/she does not in fact meet the conditions laid down by Community law for the recognition of the right of residence. The Court upheld the Commission's opinion and decided that - even if Belgium may decide to deport a Union citizen where that person is unable to produce, within the required period, the documents proving that he/she fulfils the necessary financial conditions - an automatic expulsion is disproportionate to the seriousness of the infringement and is liable to deter Union citizens from exercising their right to freedom of movement.

3. The judgment is another fine example of the importance the Court attaches to the protection of the fundamental right of free movement by Union citizens and to the need to interpret and apply Community law in accordance with the principle of proportionality.

Further information:

full text of the judgement