Case C-27/23 <i>Hocinx</i>: Business as usual in equal treatment of frontier workers with an alarming twist

Case C-27/23 Hocinx can be seen as a follow-up to the 2020 C-802/18 Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants case. For a second time around, the legislation of Luxemburg provided for differential conditions for the award of its family allowances, between workers resident in Luxemburg and non-resident (frontier) workers. The Court found for indirect discrimination on the basis of nationality under Article 7(2) of Regulation 492/2011 and Article 45 TFEU. This not a surprising outcome and in fact is fully consistent with previous case law. There is, however, a part of the judgment which certainly raises eyebrows and causes concern. Regulation 883/2004 (and its Implementing Regulation 987/2009) has been disregarded, despite the conditions for its applicability being clearly fulfilled. What is even more vexatious is the treatment of Article 67 of Regulation 883/2004, where the Court seems to overlook its own previous rich line of case law. Although the Court has once more sent the signal that practices which restrict equal treatment of frontier workers will not get past its scrutiny, the relationship between Regulation 492/2011 and Regulation 883/2004 is not treated appropriately.