Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles (17th Chamber), by judgment of that court of 8 September 2004 in the case of Gérald de Cuyper v Office national de l'emploi

(Case C-406/04)

(2004/C 284/21)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles (Labour Court, Brussels) (17th Chamber) by judgment of that court of 8 September 2004, in the case of Gérald de Cuyper v Office national de l'emploi, received at the Court Registry on 23 September 2004.

The Tribunal de travail de Bruxelles (17th Chamber) has asked the Court to give a preliminary ruling on the following questions:

‘Does the obligation actually to reside in Belgium, which under Article 66 of the Royal Decree of 25 November 1991 regulating unemployment is a condition for the award of benefits, applied to an unemployed person aged over 50 who enjoys an exemption under Article 89 of that Royal Decree from the requirement to sign on which entails dispensation from the requirement to be available for work, amount to a fetter on the freedom of movement and residence of all European citizens under Articles 17 and 18 of the Treaty establishing the European Community?

Does the obligation of residence in the State competent to award unemployment benefits, justified in domestic law by the needs of monitoring compliance with the statutory requirements for the payment of benefits to unemployed persons, satisfy the requirement of proportionality which must be observed in the pursuit of that objective of general interest in that it constitutes a limitation on the freedom of movement and residence of all European citizens under Articles 17 and 18 of the Treaty establishing the European Community?

Does that residence requirement not have the effect of discriminating between European citizens who are nationals of a Member State competent to award unemployment benefits by affording that entitlement to those who do not exercise the right to freedom of movement and residence of all European citizens under Articles 17 and 18 of the Treaty, whilst denying it to those who do seek to exercise that right, by the deterrent effect which that restriction entails?’