Caisse régionale d'assurance maladie Rhône-Alpes v Anna Giletti, Directeur régional des affaires sanitaires et sociales de Lorraine v Domenico Giardini, Caisse régionale d'assurance maladie du Nord-Est v Feliciano Tampan and Severino Severini v Caisse primaire centrale d'assurance maladie.
Date: 1987-02-24
10 THOSE CONSIDERATIONS APPLY TO THE PRESENT CASE . LEGISLATION OF THE TYPE WITH WHICH THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING IS CONCERNED IN FACT FULFILS A DUAL FUNCTION, IN SO FAR AS, IN THE FIRST PLACE, IT GUARANTEES A MINIMUM MEANS OF SUBSISTENCE TO PERSONS IN NEED AND, IN THE SECOND PLACE, IT PROVIDES ADDITIONAL INCOME FOR THE RECIPIENTS OF SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS WHICH ARE INADEQUATE .
11 IN SO FAR AS SUCH LEGISLATION 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 . THE FACT THAT A SINGLE LAW MAY ALSO PROVIDE FOR ADVANTAGES WHICH CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS ASSISTANCE CANNOT ALTER, FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMMUNITY LAW, THE INTRINSIC SOCIAL SECURITY CHARACTER OF A BENEFIT LINKED TO AN INVALIDITY, OLD-AGE OR SURVIVOR' S PENSION TO WHICH IT IS AN AUTOMATIC SUPPLEMENT .
14 IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 7 NOVEMBER 1973 ( CASE 51/73 SOCIALE VERZEKERINGSBANK V SMEIJA (( 1973 )) ECR 1213 ), THE COURT NOTED THAT THE PURPOSE OF THAT PROVISION IS TO PROMOTE THE FREE MOVEMENT OF WORKERS BY PROTECTING THOSE CONCERNED FROM THE HARMFUL CONSEQUENCES WHICH MIGHT RESULT WHEN THEY TRANSFER THEIR RESIDENCE FROM ONE MEMBER STATE TO ANOTHER . ACCORDING TO THAT JUDGMENT, BY VIRTUE OF THAT PURPOSE THE PROTECTION THUS PROVIDED MUST NECESSARILY COVER BENEFITS WHICH, WHILE CREATED WITHIN THE CONFINES OF A PARTICULAR SCHEME, TAKE THE FORM OF AN INCREASE IN THE VALUE OF THE PENSION .
15 ACCORDING TO THE JUDGMENT OF 10 JUNE 1982 ( CASE 92/81 CARACCIOLA ( NEE CAMERA ) V INAMI (( 1982 )) ECR 2213 ), THOSE CONSIDERATIONS IMPLY NOT ONLY THAT THE PERSON CONCERNED RETAINS THE RIGHT TO RECEIVE PENSIONS AND BENEFITS ACQUIRED UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF ONE OR MORE MEMBER STATES EVEN AFTER TAKING UP RESIDENCE IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE, BUT ALSO THAT HE MAY NOT BE PREVENTED FROM ACQUIRING SUCH A RIGHT MERELY BECAUSE HE DOES NOT RESIDE IN THE TERRITORY OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE INSTITUTION RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT IS SITUATED .
16 ARTICLE 10 ( 1 ) PROHIBITS THE COMPETENT INSTITUTIONS OF THE MEMBER STATES, IN GENERAL TERMS, FROM REDUCING, MODIFYING, SUSPENDING, WITHDRAWING OR CONFISCATING BENEFITS COVERED BY THE REGULATION BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT THE RECIPIENT RESIDES IN THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE . THE ONLY EXCEPTIONS TO THAT PROHIBITION ARE THOSE EXPRESSLY PROVIDED FOR IN COMMUNITY LEGISLATION .
17 THE ANSWER TO THE SECOND QUESTION MUST THEREFORE BE THAT ARTICLE 10 OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT A PERSON MAY NOT BE PRECLUDED FROM ACQUIRING OR RETAINING ENTITLEMENT TO THE BENEFITS, PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES REFERRED TO IN THAT PROVISION ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT HE DOES NOT RESIDE WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF THE MEMBER STATE IN WHICH THE INSTITUTION RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT IS SITUATED .