61983CJ0238_EN
Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
Parties
IN CASE 238/83
REFERENCE TO THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY BY THE COMMISSION DE PREMIERE INSTANCE DU CONTENTIEUX DE LA SECURITE SOCIALE ET DE LA MUTUALITE SOCIALE AGRICOLE ( SOCIAL SECURITY AND AGRICULTURAL SOCIAL INSURANCE MUTUAL BENEFIT APPEALS BOARD ), PARIS, FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING IN THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THAT COURT BETWEEN
CAISSE D ' ALLOCATIONS FAMILIALES DE LA REGION PARISIENNE ( FAMILY ALLOWANCES FUND FOR THE PARIS REGION )
AND
MR AND MRS RICHARD MEADE
Subject of the case
FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 48 OF THE EEC TREATY AND THE PROVISIONS OF COMMUNITY LAW ON THE GRANT OF FAMILY ALLOWANCES,
Grounds
1 BY DECISION OF 3 JUNE 1983, WHICH WAS RECEIVED AT THE COURT ON 21 OCTOBER 1983, THE COMMISSION DE PREMIERE INSTANCE DU CONTENTIEUX DE LA SECURITE SOCIALE ET DE LA MUTUALITE SOCIALE AGRICOLE, PARIS, REFERRED TO THE COURT FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY A QUESTION RELATING TO THE INTERPRETATION OF COMMUNITY LAW, AND IN PARTICULAR OF ARTICLE 48 OF THE EEC TREATY, IN ORDER TO ENABLE IT TO DECIDE AS TO THE PAYMENT OF FAMILY ALLOWANCES IN RESPECT OF A CHILD ATTENDING SCHOOL IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE .
2 THAT QUESTION WAS RAISED IN THE CONTEXT OF PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN THE CAISSE D ' ALLOCATIONS FAMILIALES DE LA REGION PARISIENNE ( FAMILY ALLOWANCES FUND FOR THE PARIS REGION, HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ' ' THE FUND ' ' ) AND RICHARD MEADE, A UNITED STATES NATIONAL ESTABLISHED IN PARIS, WHERE HE IS SELF-EMPLOYED, AND HIS WIFE, A BRITISH NATIONAL . THE DISPUTE CONCERNS THE WITHDRAWAL OF FAMILY ALLOWANCES IN RESPECT OF THE MEADES '
TWO SONS, BOTH BRITISH NATIONALS, AND THE REPAYMENT OF SUMS ALREADY PAID .
3 UNTIL 1980, THE MEADES RECEIVED FAMILY ALLOWANCES IN RESPECT OF THEIR TWO SONS PURSUANT TO THE RELEVANT FRENCH PROVISIONS UNDER WHICH SUCH ALLOWANCES ARE PAYABLE ' ' AS FROM THE SECOND DEPENDENT CHILD RESIDING IN FRANCE ' ' . IN 1980, THE FUND LEARNED THAT, SINCE 1978, ONE OF THE MEADES '
TWO SONS HAD
BEEN ATTENDING SCHOOL IN ENGLAND . SINCE THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE FRENCH PROVISIONS ALLOW ENTITLEMENT TO FAMILY ALLOWANCES TO BE RETAINED IN THE CASE OF A CHILD STUDYING ABROAD HAD NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH, THE FUND SUSPENDED PAYMENT OF THOSE BENEFITS AND CLAIMED REPAYMENT FROM THE MEADES OF THE ALLOWANCES WRONGLY PAID TO THEM .
4 MR AND MRS MEADE, RELYING UPON THE PRINCIPLE OF FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR PERSONS AND, IN PARTICULAR, ON ARTICLE 48 OF THE EEC TREATY, APPEALED TO THE COMMISSION DE PREMIERE INSTANCE DU CONTENTIEUX DE LA SECURITE SOCIALE ET DE LA MUTUALITE SOCIALE AGRICOLE, PARIS, WHICH CONSIDERED IT NECESSARY TO REFER THE FOLLOWING QUESTION TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING :
' ' IS THE CAISSE D ' ALLOCATIONS FAMILIALES ENTITLED, ON THE BASIS OF ARTICLE 48 OF THE EEC TREATY, TO DEMAND REPAYMENT OF THE FAMILY ALLOWANCES PAID TO THE PARENTS OF A YOUNG MAN OF BRITISH NATIONALITY ON THE GROUND THAT HE IS PURSUING HIS STUDIES IN ENGLAND AND TO SUSPEND PAYMENT OF THE SAID ALLOWANCES ON THE SAME GROUND?
' '
5 THAT QUESTION SEEKS ESSENTIALLY TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF COMMUNITY LAW, AND IN PARTICULAR ARTICLE 48 OF THE TREATY, PREVENT THE WITHDRAWAL OF FAMILY ALLOWANCES ON THE GROUND THAT A CHILD IS ATTENDING SCHOOL IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE .
6 FAMILY ALLOWANCES ARE ONE OF THE BENEFITS GOVERNED BY REGULATION NO 1408/71 OF THE COUNCIL OF 14 JUNE 1971 ON THE APPLICATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY SCHEMES TO EMPLOYED PERSONS AND THEIR FAMILIES MOVING WITHIN THE COMMUNITY, WHICH, AT THE TIME OF THE EVENTS REFERRED TO BY THE QUESTION FROM THE NATIONAL TRIBUNAL, HAD NOT BEEN EXTENDED TO SELF-EMPLOYED PERSONS BY COUNCIL REGULATION NO 1390/81 OF 12 MAY 1981 . SINCE THE PURPOSE OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 WAS TO ADOPT, IN THE FIELD OF SOCIAL SECURITY, THE MEASURES NECESSARY, IN CONFORMITY WITH ARTICLE 51 OF THE TREATY, TO ESTABLISH FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR WORKERS AS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 48 OF THE TREATY, THE QUESTION WHETHER COMMUNITY LAW, IN A CASE SUCH AS THIS, PREVENTS THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE BENEFITS AT ISSUE MUST BE ASSESSED IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THAT REGULATION .
7 BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 2 ( 1 ), REGULATION NO 1408/71 IS TO ' ' APPLY TO WORKERS . . . WHO ARE NATIONALS OF ONE OF THE MEMBER STATES . . . AS ALSO TO THE MEMBERS OF THEIR FAMILIES ' ' . SIMILARLY, ARTICLE 48 GUARANTEES FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS ONLY TO WORKERS OF THE MEMBER STATES . AS IS CLEAR FROM THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT, THE NATIONAL COURT RAISED ITS QUESTION IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CASE OF A CHILD WHOSE FATHER IS A NATIONAL OF A NON-MEMBER COUNTRY AND WHOSE MOTHER IS NOT AN EMPLOYED PERSON . UNDER THOSE CONDITIONS, REGULATION NO 1408/71 DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS CASE .
8 DURING THE HEARING BEFORE THE COURT, MR MEADE CONTENDED THAT IT WAS HIS WIFE RATHER THAN HE WHO WAS ENTITLED TO FAMILY ALLOWANCES, ON THE BASIS OF VARIOUS PROFESSIONAL OR TRADE ACTIVITIES IN WHICH SHE HAS ENGAGED . IN THAT CONNECTION, IT IS SUFFICIENT TO NOTE THAT, AS REGARDS THE DIVISION OF JURISDICTION BETWEEN THE NATIONAL COURTS AND THE COURT OF JUSTICE, IT IS FOR THE NATIONAL COURT TO ESTABLISH THE RELEVANT FACTS IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER MRS MEADE IS TO BE REGARDED AS A WORKER WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 1 ( A ) OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 AND WHETHER, IN CONSEQUENCE, THAT REGULATION MAY BE APPLIED TO HER .
9 IT SHOULD BE ADDED, AS THE COURT STATED IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 1 DECEMBER 1977 ( CASE 66/77, KUYKEN V RIJKSDIENST VOOR ARBEIDSVOORZIENING, ( 1977 ) ECR 2311 ), THAT THE POSITION OF A PERSON WHO HAS GONE TO ANOTHER MEMBER STATE IN ORDER TO FOLLOW A COURSE OF STUDY AND WHO, DURING THAT PERIOD, WAS NOT INSURED UNDER A SOCIAL SECURITY SCHEME SET UP FOR THE BENEFIT OF EMPLOYED PERSONS DOES NOT COME WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 48 TO 51 OF THE TREATY . IT CANNOT THUS BE CONSIDERED THAT WITHDRAWAL OF FAMILY ALLOWANCES PAYABLE TO THE PARENTS OF A CHILD IN THAT SITUATION CONSTITUTES, AS REGARDS THE LATTER, A RESTRICTION ON THE FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT WHICH IS GUARANTEED BY ARTICLE 48 .
10 THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION RAISED SHOULD THUS BE THAT NEITHER REGULATION NO 1408/71 NOR ARTICLE 48 OF THE TREATY PREVENTS FAMILY ALLOWANCES FROM BEING WITHDRAWN PURSUANT TO NATIONAL LEGISLATION ON THE GROUND THAT A CHILD IS PURSUING ITS STUDIES IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE, WHERE THE PARENTS OF THE CHILD CONCERNED ARE NATIONALS OF A NON-MEMBER COUNTRY OR ARE NOT EMPLOYED PERSONS .
Decision on costs
COSTS
11 THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, WHICH HAS SUBMITTED OBSERVATIONS TO THE COURT, ARE NOT RECOVERABLE . AS THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE, IN SO FAR AS THE PARTIES TO THE MAIN ACTION ARE CONCERNED, IN THE NATURE OF A STEP IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THE NATIONAL COURT, THE DECISION AS TO COSTS IS A MATTER FOR THAT COURT .
Operative part
ON THOSE GROUNDS,
THE COURT ( THIRD CHAMBER )
IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION REFERRED TO IT BY THE COMMISSION DE PREMIERE INSTANCE DU CONTENTIEUX DE LA SECURITE SOCIALE ET DE LA MUTUALITE SOCIALE AGRICOLE, PARIS, BY DECISION OF 3 JUNE 1983, HEREBY RULES :
NEITHER REGULATION NO 1408/71 NOR ARTICLE 48 OF THE TREATY PREVENTS FAMILY ALLOWANCES FROM BEING WITHDRAWN PURSUANT TO NATIONAL LEGISLATION ON THE GROUND THAT A CHILD IS PURSUING ITS STUDIES IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE, WHERE THE PARENTS OF THE CHILD CONCERNED ARE NATIONALS OF A NON-MEMBER COUNTRY OR ARE NOT EMPLOYED PERSONS .