PROVIDING THEM WITH A MINIMUM MEANS OF SUBSISTENCE, PROVIDED THAT THE PERSONS CONCERNED HAVE A LEGALLY PROTECTED RIGHT TO THE GRANT OF SUCH AN ALLOWANCE .
SECOND QUESTION
10 THE SECOND QUESTION IS CONCERNED WITH THE SCOPE RATIONE PERSONAE OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 IN RELATION TO THE POSITION OF A RECIPIENT OF A PENSION IN A MEMBER STATE, WHO IS NOT A NATIONAL OF A MEMBER STATE AND DOES NOT HAVE THE STATUS OF A STATELESS PERSON, AND IS MARRIED TO A WORKER WHO IS A NATIONAL OF THE FIRST-MENTIONED MEMBER STATE .
11 ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 2 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 1408/71, THE PROVISIONS OF THAT REGULATION APPLY "TO WORKERS WHO ARE OR HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO THE LEGISLATION OF ONE OR MORE MEMBER STATES AND WHO ARE NATIONALS OF ONE OF THE MEMBER STATES ... AS WELL AS TO THE MEMBERS OF THEIR FAMILIES AND THEIR SURVIVORS ". AS THE COURT STATED IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 23 NOVEMBER 1976 IN CASE 40/76 KERMASCHEK V BUNDESANSTALT FOER ARBEIT (( 1976 )) ECR 1669, THE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY OF A WORKER CAN ONLY CLAIM DERIVED RIGHTS UNDER REGULATION NO 1408/71, THAT IS TO SAY THE RIGHTS ACQUIRED THROUGH THEIR STATUS AS MEMBERS OF A WORKER' S FAMILY .
12 IN THIS CASE, IT IS CLEAR FROM THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT THAT THE SUPPLEMENTARY ALLOWANCE PAID BY THE FONDS NATIONAL DE SOLIDARITE IS GRANTED TO THE RECIPIENTS OF CERTAIN PENSIONS, WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE IN ANY WAY RELATED TO A WORKER . THE CONCLUSION MUST THEREFORE BE DRAWN THAT THE RIGHT TO THAT SUPPLEMENTARY ALLOWANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A DERIVED RIGHT FOR THE PURPOSES OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 .
13 IT FOLLOWS THAT A MEMBER OF THE FAMILY OF A WORKER WHO IS A NATIONAL OF A MEMBER STATE CANNOT RELY ON REGULATION NO 1408/71 IN ORDER TO CLAIM A SUPPLEMENTARY ALLOWANCE CONNECTED WITH A PENSION WHICH HE RECEIVES IN THAT MEMBER STATE IN A CAPACITY OTHER THAN THAT OF A MEMBER OF A WORKER' S FAMILY .
14 THE COMMISSION, IN ITS OBSERVATIONS TO THE COURT, RAISED THE QUESTION WHETHER THE PERSON CONCERNED WAS ENTITLED, IN A CASE SUCH AS THIS, TO RELY ON REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1612/68 OF THE COUNCIL OF 15 OCTOBER 1968 ON FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR WORKERS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL, ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION 1968 ( II ), P . 475 ) IN ORDER TO OBTAIN IN A MEMBER STATE THE SAME SOCIAL ADVANTAGES AS WORKERS WHO ARE NATIONALS OF THAT STATE, BUT IT CONCLUDED THAT HE COULD NOT .
15 THAT CONCLUSION MUST BE UPHELD . AS THE COURT HELD IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 27 OCTOBER 1982 IN JOINED CASES 35 AND 36/82 MORSON AND JHANJAN V NETHERLANDS (( 1982 )) ECR 3723, THE COMMUNITY RULES ON FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR WORKERS DO NOT APPLY TO CASES WHICH HAVE NO FACTOR LINKING THEM WITH ANY OF THE SITUATIONS GOVERNED BY COMMUNITY LAW . SUCH IS UNDOUBTEDLY