THAT BENEFIT . THE NATIONAL COURT POINTS OUT IN THAT REGARD THAT MR ZAOUI IS NOT A FRENCH NATIONAL, DOES NOT CLAIM THE NATIONALITY OF ANY OTHER COUNTRY AND, MOREOVER, HAS BEEN DENIED THE STATUS OF A STATELESS PERSON BY A DECISION OF THE OFFICE FRANCAIS DE PROTECTION DES REFUGIES ET APATRIDES ( FRENCH BUREAU FOR THE PROTECTION OF REFUGEES AND STATELESS PERSONS ).
5 IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE NATIONAL COURT, MR ZAOUI ARGUED THAT THE ALLOWANCE FROM THE FONDS NATIONAL DE SOLIDARITE SHOULD BE GRANTED TO HIM IN HIS CAPACITY AS A MEMBER OF THE FAMILY OF A COMMUNITY NATIONAL, HIS WIFE BEING A FRENCH NATIONAL . THE REGIONAL FUND CONTENDED THAT THE SUPPLEMENTARY ALLOWANCE FROM THE FONDS NATIONAL DE SOLIDARITE DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE COMMUNITY REGULATIONS ON SOCIAL SECURITY SINCE IT CONSTITUTES NOT A SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFIT BUT SOCIAL ASSISTANCE WHICH IS NOT COVERED BY THOSE REGULATIONS .
6 IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE NATIONAL COURT REQUESTED THE COURT TO GIVE A PRELIMINARY RULING ON THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS :
( 1 ) DOES THE OPERATION OF THE FONDS NATIONAL DE SOLIDARITE AS LAID DOWN BY ARTICLES L 685 AND L 707 ( NOW BOTH REPEALED ) OF THE CODE DE LA SECURITE SOCIALE FALL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 OR ANY OTHER COMMUNITY REGULATION?
( 2 ) IS MR ZAOUI, WHO IS NOT A FRENCH NATIONAL ( AND WHO HAS NOT, TO DATE, BEEN RECOGNIZED AS A STATELESS PERSON ) BUT WHOSE WIFE IS A FRENCH NATIONAL, ENTITLED TO AVAIL HIMSELF OF THE LEGISLATION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES?
7 REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE REPORT FOR THE HEARING FOR A FULLER ACCOUNT OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE OBSERVATIONS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT BY THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT AND THE COMMISSION, WHICH ARE MENTIONED HEREINAFTER ONLY IN SO FAR AS IS NECESSARY FOR THE REASONING OF THE COURT .
FIRST QUESTION
8 THE FIRST QUESTION IS CONCERNED WITH THE SCOPE RATIONE MATERIAE OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 IN RELATION TO THE SUPPLEMENTARY ALLOWANCE PAID, BY VIRTUE OF THE RELEVANT FRENCH LEGISLATION, BY THE FONDS NATIONAL DE SOLIDARITE . THAT QUESTION HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COURT IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 24 FEBRUARY 1987 IN JOINED CASES 379 TO 381/85 AND 93/86 GILETTI (( 1987 )) ECR 955 . IN THAT JUDGMENT, THE COURT HELD THAT, IN SO FAR AS LEGISLATION SUCH AS THAT AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE CONFERS A RIGHT TO SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS DESIGNED TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF PENSIONS PAID BY WAY OF SOCIAL SECURITY, WITHOUT ANY ASSESSMENT OF INDIVIDUAL NEEDS OR CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH IS A CHARACTERISTIC OF ASSISTANCE, IT COMES WITHIN THE SOCIAL SECURITY SCHEME WITHIN THE MEANING OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 .
9 THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION MUST THEREFORE BE THAT REGULATION NO 1408/71 DOES NOT EXCLUDE FROM ITS SCOPE RATIONE MATERIAE A SUPPLEMENTARY ALLOWANCE PAID BY A NATIONAL SOLIDARITY FUND AND GRANTED TO RECIPIENTS OF OLD-AGE, SURVIVORS' OR INVALIDITY PENSIONS WITH A VIEW TO