WRITTEN QUESTION E-1848/02

by Guido Bodrato (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 June 2002)

Subject: Application of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 calculating the pensions of migrant workers

As the Commission is aware the Court of Justice, in its 24 September 1998 judgment in Case C-132/96 (Stinco-Panfilo vs INPS), condemned the prorata temporis method of pension calculation which was being used by the Italian state social-security body (INPS) on the grounds that it is not in accordance with Article 46(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71(1).

Three years later the body in question is still refusing to accept the above judgment on the grounds that it applies only to the two parties which are directly involved, and is thereby forcing many Italian pensioners to embark on a lengthy administrative and judicial procedure in order to secure recognition of their rights.

Would the Commission say:

- whether or not it is acceptable for a state social-security body to disregard Court of Justice judgments, declaring them to apply only to the parties to which they are directly addressed;

- what action it intends to take in order to ensure compliance with the above Court of Justice judgment;

- whether or not it considers, in view of the INPS's resistance, that it should open an infringement procedure against Italy, as provided for in Article 226 of the Treaty?

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(9 September 2002)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that interpretations given to provisions of Community law by the Court of Justice of the European Communities in its judgments following requests for preliminary rulings in accordance with Article 234 of the EC Treaty are valid in all Member States and take precedence over interpretations by national courts. Court of Justice interpretations apply to all legal situations that are identical to that which has arisen in the specific case referred to by a judgment.

As far as the Commission is aware, the Italian State has complied with Court of Justice jurisprudence in case C-132/96 (Stinco and Panfilo). In this case the Court of Justice held that Article 46(2)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, as amended in turn by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 of 30 April 1992 and by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of 30 April 1992, must be interpreted as requiring the competent institution, in determining the theoretical amount of the pension on which the calculation of the pro rata pension is based, to take into account a supplement intended to bring the pension to the level of the statutory minimum, i.e. the minimum pension supplement provided for under Italian legislation.

To date, the Commission has not received any complaints concerning the problem referred to in the Stinco and Panfilo judgment.

In the absence of any such complaints, the Commission has no reason to open infringement proceedings against the Italian State.