Ralph James Bartlett and Others v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
Date: 2011-05-05
21. In that regard, it must be borne in mind that the Court held, in paragraph 69 of the judgment in Case C‑299/05 Commission  v Parliament and Council , that the mobility component of DLA is severable, with the result that that component alone could be included on the list in Annex IIa to Regulation No 1408/71, as amended, if the United Kingdom decided to create an allowance which concerned that component alone. It follows that the mobility component of DLA, by itself, constitutes a ‘benefit’ within the terms of Article 1(t) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended.
24. Next, as the Court has stated, it is not in dispute that the mobility component of DLA is in the nature of a non-contributory benefit (see, to that effect, Case C‑299/05 Commission  v Parliament and Council , paragraph 74) or that it is a cash benefit.
25. With regard to the question whether the mobility component of DLA is a special benefit, the Court has stated that DLA can be considered to include a ‘social assistance’ component and that the mobility component of DLA is in the nature of a special non-contributory benefit and ‘could’ lawfully be included in the list in Annex IIa to Regulation No 1408/71, as amended, as a non-exportable benefit (see Case C‑299/05 Commission  v Parliament and Council , paragraphs 67 and 74). It is in this context that the Court, which annulled the reference to DLA in the list in that annex, decided provisionally to maintain the effects of inclusion of DLA in that list as regards solely the mobility part thereof so that, within a reasonable period, appropriate measures could be taken to include it in that annex (see, to that effect, Case C‑299/05 Commission  v Parliament and Council , paragraph 75). It follows, in the view of the Court, that the mobility component of DLA may be a special benefit within the meaning of Article 4(2a) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended.
26. It should also be noted that it follows from the Court’s case-law that a special benefit is defined by its purpose (see, inter alia, Case C‑154/05 Kersbergen-Lap and Dams-Shipper  [2006] ECR I‑6249, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited).
36. The Court has, in similar circumstances, held that it must extract from all the factors provided by the national court or tribunal, and in particular from the statement of grounds contained in the reference, the elements of European Union law requiring an interpretation, having regard to the subject-matter of the dispute in the main proceedings (see, to that effect, Case 204/87 Bekaert  [1988] ECR 2029, paragraph 7 and the case-law cited).
38. With regard to the first aspect, the Court has already held that the provisions of Regulation No 1408/71 on the waiver of residence clauses constitute measures to give effect to Article 48 TFEU taken in order to establish, in the field of social security, the free movement of workers guaranteed by Article 45 TFEU and that, as regards the special non-contributory benefits mentioned in Annex IIa to Regulation No 1408/71, it is permissible for the European Union legislature to adopt, in the course of implementation of Article 48 TFEU, provisions derogating from the principle of the exportability of social security benefits. In particular, the grant of benefits closely linked with the social environment may legitimately be made subject to a condition of residence in the State of the competent institution (see, to that effect, Joined Cases C‑396/05, C‑419/05 and C‑450/05 Habelt and Others  [2007] ECR I‑11895, paragraphs 78 and 81 and the case-law cited).
41. As regards the rules on European Union citizenship, it must be borne in mind that, in accordance with settled case‑law, Article 21 TFEU, which sets out the right of every citizen of the Union to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, finds specific expression in Article 45 TFEU (see, inter alia, Case C‑287/05 Hendrix  [2007] ECR I‑6909, paragraph 61) and that accordingly there is no need to adjudicate thereon for the purpose of the main proceedings.