This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Case C-224/98 D’Hoop [2002] ECR I-6191

By Oxbridge Law TeamUpdated 04/01/2024 07:15

Judgement for the case Case C-224/98 D’Hoop

Table Of Contents

  • D'Hoop was a Belgian national who was refused the ‘tideover’ allowance when seeking her first job in Belgium on the grounds that she had completed her secondary education in France.

  • ECJ held that this was unlawful discrimination on the grounds of nationality and infringed freedom of movement: a citizen was entitled to free movement (Article 18) and equal treatment (Article 12), which were infringed by the secondary education rule:

    • Free movement was infringed because the rule would deter a person from actually exercising this right lest they suffer financial disadvantage.

    • Equal treatment is infringed because the rule would discriminate against those from other MSs.

  • Such a condition could only be justified where it sought to achieve a legitimate aim, not connected with nationality, where necessary, and provided the measure was proportionate.

  • While the aim of helping young people make the transition between university and work, while ensuring a real link with the national labour market, is legitimate, the sole condition of where one does one’s secondary education goes beyond what is necessary (and may not even be ‘suitable’ for achieving this aim, given that people might leave Belgium as soon as they leave university)

ECJ

Union citizenship is destined to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States, enabling those who find themselves in the same situation to enjoy within the scope ratione materiae of the Treaty the same treatment in law irrespective of their nationality, subject to such exceptions as are expressly provided for…

The situations falling within the scope of Community law include those involving the exercise of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty, in particular those involving the freedom to move and reside within the territory of the Member States.

  • It is incompatible with this for an EU citizen to be treated less favourably on the grounds of having exercised his right to move. 

Any comments or edits about this case? Get in touch

For Further Study on Case C-224/98 D’Hoop

European Law Notes
1,161 total pages
1028 purchased

European Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...

Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.

Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️

Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.

Get Started

Related Product Samples

These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.

European LawFree Movement Of Persons Notes (29 pages)
Claim every advantage to get a first in law
European Law Notes
1,161 total pages
1028 purchased

European Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambrid...