law eec

-Raad van State (State Council) of Netherlands considered that the judgment to be given depended on the interpretation of Community law to answer of three essential questions, which were provided by them to the Court of Justice:
- Can someone who pursues an activity in a certain Member State and receives a lower salary than the necessary by law to support himself/herself in a country according to that member's state law still be regarded as a European Economic citizen?
- Should other sources of income, different from the main occupation, be considered when individuals apply for a residence permit?
-Assuming first question is positive, if the main reasons of the individual to move to other State Member are others than for its job or effective activity to be performed in that country, shall the residence permit still be provided?
The appellant being considered a EEC citizen, and under the article 48 of the Treaty freedom of movement for workers within the community (it pretends to eliminate any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States for the purpose of employment), we can observe that the national law of Netherlands, and therefore the decision of the Raad van State of denying Mrs. Levin the resident permit was in direct conflict with EEC law which is above the law of its member states. Despite this, the Netherlands State Council justified that it would apply the article 48 under the condition that a minimum wage was satisfied. The Court of Justice pointed out that the national laws cannot modify what is announced or proposed in the Treaties of the Community, and it considerer that it would open the door to ambiguous interpretations, and consequently, uncertain applications of the primary source of law. Accordingly with its arguments, the Court of justice provided an affirmative answer to the first.
Regarding the second question, we have to state the fact that Raad van State affirmed that the appellant employment was