# C_2020215EN.01001401.xml

| 29.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 12 March 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation — France) — Caisse d’assurance retraite et de la santé au travail d’Alsace-Moselle v SJ, Ministre chargé de la Sécurité sociale

(Case C-769/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 5(b) - Increase in the rate for old-age pensions - Taking into account of the allowance paid in respect of the raising of a disabled child in another Member State - Principle of equal treatment of facts)

(2020/C 215/16)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Caisse d’assurance retraite et de la santé au travail d’Alsace-Moselle

Defendants: SJ, Ministre chargé de la Sécurité sociale

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 988/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the assistance for integration of mentally disabled children and young people, provided for in Paragraph 35a of Book VIII, of the Sozialgesetzbuch (German Social Code), does not constitute a benefit within the meaning of Article 3 and, therefore, does not fall within the material scope of that regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 988/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that the assistance for integration of mentally disabled children and young people, provided for in Paragraph 35a of Book VIII, of the Sozialgesetzbuch (German Social Code), does not constitute a benefit within the meaning of Article 3 and, therefore, does not fall within the material scope of that regulation.

| 2. | Article 5 of Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 988/2009, must be interpreted as meaning that:






  — | the child-rearing allowance for a disabled child, provided for in Article L. 541-1 of the Code de la sécurité sociale (French Social Security Code), and the assistance for integration of mentally disabled children and young people, provided for in Paragraph 35a of Book VIII of the German Social Code, cannot be considered to be benefits of an equivalent nature, for the purposes of Article 5(a); |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Article 5 of Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 988/2009, must be interpreted as meaning that:

—

the child-rearing allowance for a disabled child, provided for in Article L. 541-1 of the Code de la sécurité sociale (French Social Security Code), and the assistance for integration of mentally disabled children and young people, provided for in Paragraph 35a of Book VIII of the German Social Code, cannot be considered to be benefits of an equivalent nature, for the purposes of Article 5(a);

| — | the principle of equal treatment of facts enshrined in Article 5(b) applies in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings. It is therefore for the competent French authorities to ascertain whether, in the present case, it is established that the fact required for the purposes of that provision has occurred. In that connection, those authorities must take into account similar facts occurring in Germany as though they had taken place on their own territory. |
| --- | --- |

—

the principle of equal treatment of facts enshrined in Article 5(b) applies in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings. It is therefore for the competent French authorities to ascertain whether, in the present case, it is established that the fact required for the purposes of that provision has occurred. In that connection, those authorities must take into account similar facts occurring in Germany as though they had taken place on their own territory.

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 11.2.2019.

---