nfirming the fact of application for its prolongation.of all, the Court has admitted, that on the citizen of the state - member residing legally on the territory of another state - member, regulations of the Treaty about the European citizenship by virtue of ration personae are distributed (item 61). The given regulations coordinate the status of the citizen of the Union with the rights and duties stipulated in it, including right fixed in Article 6 [12] not be exposed to discrimination on the basis of the state belonging to the sphere of action of the Treaty of ration material [13] (item 62). Accordingly, the citizen of the Union residing legally on the territory of the state, can base on regulation of Article 6 of the Treaty in all situations valid by virtue ration material in the sphere of action of the right of the Community. In the opinion of the Court, as to the situations when the state - member detains granting or refuses in granting privileges on the ground that the applicant does not possess the document, in which delivery the authorities of the given state can refuse and which representation is not required from the citizens of the given state (item 63). In the given case the Court has come to the conclusion, that the right of the Communities interferes with the state - member to demand from the citizens of other states - members allowed to reside on its territory, representation of the sanction to residing for reception of the birth grant if the citizens of the given state has enough resided in the country (item 65) .spite of the fact that many state - members did not share new approaches, the Court of the European Communities in the decision on the case Grzhelchuk from September 20, 2001 [14] has repeatedly confirmed the position according to which regulations of the Treaty about interdiction of discrimination on the basis of the state belonging and about the citizenship of the Union exclude the opportunity of introduction of additional conditions for granting the citizens of other state - members, legally residing on the territory of the state - member of the Community, of social privileges not connected with realization of insurance payments if the corresponding conditions are not stipulated for the citizens of the corresponding state (item 46). The court has specified the legal position formulated earlier, having specified, that in the number of situations in which the citizen of the Union residing legally on the territory of the state, can base on the regulations of item. 6 of the Treaty [15], enter the connected with realization of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty and the stipulated by Article 8 [16] rights to free movement [17] (items 33). In the given case the Court has for the first time offered own treatment of the citizenship of the Union as the fundamental status of the citizens of the state - members, allowing those who are in the similar situation, to enjoy identical legal regime, irrespective of their citizenship, except for specially stipulated cases [18] (item 31) .interesting problem has been put in the case D Hoop [19] in which the Court of EU has to specify, whether the right of the Community interferes with state - members to refuse the own citizen in reception of the grant for the persons who terminated secondary education and looking for the job for the first time, only on the ground that he has got the secondary education in the other state - member. The court has paid attention to the fact that the citizen of EU in all states - members of the Community should be given the same legal regime, as to the citizens of the corresponding state in the similar situation, and has recognized the position at which the citizen of the Union in the own state has less favorable legal regime, than that he could have if did not take advantage of opportunities given by the Treaty in the field of freedom of movement, not compatible with the right to free movement (item 30). According to the Court, such inequality contradicts the principles of the status of the citizen of the Union, that is the guarantee of identical legal regime at realization by the citizens of EU of freedom to movement (item 35) view of new approaches of the Court of EU there has arisen the question, whether it is possible to consider regulations of Article 18 of the Treaty about the European Community as directly working. According to the developed judiciary practice regulations are considered working if contain clear and precise obligations of states - members, have unconditional character and their application does not depend on adoption by the institutes of Community or states - members any measures within the framework of discretionary powers [ 20] .court of the European Communities for the first time has formulated the position in the decision on the case Bombast, R from September 17, 2 002 [21] in which there has been put the question, whether the citizen of the Union has the r...
