ight to residing in another state - member by virtue of direct action of Article 18 of the Treaty if he has lost the corresponding right as the worker - migrant. The court has specified that in no even after coming into force of the regulations of the Treaty about citizenship of the Union each citizen enjoys the right to free movement and residing in another state - member by virtue of action of item 1 Article 18 of the Treaty (item 81). The given right is directly given to each citizen of the Union on the ground of clear and precise regulations of the Treaty [22] (item 84) that does not exclude the opportunity of establishment by the Treaty and regulations adopted in its execution of restrictions and conditions of its realization [23] (item 84). However their application is subjected to the judicial control. Accordingly, the presence of restrictions and conditions does not interfere with the action of regulations of Part 1 Article 18 the Treaty giving the individual rights subjected to realization at the national level and to protection in national courts (item 86) .opportunity of introduction of restrictions and conditions is based on the fact that realization of the right of the citizens of the Union to residing on the territory of the Community can be caused by the legitimate interests of the states - members. However the given measures should act by the limits established by the right of Community, and according to the common principles of the law, in particular - the principle of harmony (item 91). In this connection the Court has come to the conclusion, that the citizen of the Union who has lost the right to residing as the worker - migrant, possesses the corresponding right as the citizen of the Union by virtue of the direct action of item 18 of the Treaty. It does not exclude establishment of restrictions and conditions, however competent bodies of the power and if it is necessary, national courts should provide, applications of the given conditions and restrictions according to common principles of the law, in particular - with the principle of harmony (item 94) .the Court has confirmed the position in the case of Troiani [24] in which considered whether the citizens of other states - members having the time sanction to residing, not being economically active persons and not having sufficient means can apply the right to residing by virtue of the direct action of Article 18 of the Treaty and whether the state of stay can refuse them in granting the social privileges not connected with realization of insurance payments.the given case the Court of EU has formulated the regulations that the right of residing in another state - member is not conditioned by realization of economic activity, having recognized, that the citizen of the Union who not enjoying the right of residing in another state - member by virtue of Articles 39, 43 or 49 of the Treaty , can possess it as the citizen of the Union on the basis of the direct action item 1 Article 18 of the Treaty (item 46). The court has also paid attention to the fact that the opportunity of the states - members to cause residing of the citizen of the Union not relating to the number of economically active persons, by presence of sufficient means, does not mean that during the legal stay on the territory of the state - member the given person can not take the certain benefit, grounding on the fundamental principle of equality in application, stipulated by item 12 of the Treaty (item 41). The citizens of the Union not relating to the number of economically active persons, can ground on regulations of the given article in connection with reception of social privileges if the stay legally in the state during the certain time and have the sanction to residing (item 43 ). Not representation of the corresponding privileges to the citizens of the Union requiring to the conditions established for the citizens of the state of stay, it should be treated as discrimination on the basis of the state belonging forbidden by Article 12 of the Treaty (item 44).to the documents the offered approach is based on the idea of ??financial solidarity of the citizens of states - members. According to the treatment of the Court of EU stay in the country of the citizens of other states - members should not lead to unreasonable burden for the public finance of the state. However the limited financial influence on the state is considered allowable as inevitable consequence of realization of the right to free movement as such financial burden in the certain degree redistributed among all states - members [25] .the Court of the European Communities has developed the position that the right of the citizen of the Union to residing at another state - member should not be conditioned by realization of economic activity, in decision on the case of Zu and Chen from October 19, 2004 [26] in which there has been considered the question on the right of the juvenile child...
