Sonia Jackson and Patricia Cresswell v Chief Adjudication Officer.
Date: 1992-07-16
15 As the Court has already held, a benefit, if it is to fall within the scope of Directive 79/7, must constitute the whole or part of a statutory scheme providing protection against one of the specified risks or a form of social assistance having the same objective (judgment in Case 150/85 Drake v Adjudication Officer [1986] ECR 1995, paragraph 21; judgment in Case C-243/90 The Queen v Secretary of State for Social Security, ex parte Smithson [1992] ECR I-467, paragraph 12).
16 The Court stated that, although the mode of payment is not decisive as regards the identification of a benefit as one which falls within the scope of Directive 79/7, nevertheless in order to fall within the scope of the directive the benefit must be directly and effectively linked to the protection provided against one of the risks specified in Article 3(1) (judgment in Smithson, paragraph 14).
17 However, Article 3(1)(a) of Directive 79/7 does not refer to a statutory scheme which, on certain conditions, provides persons with means below a legally defined limit with a special benefit designed to enable them to meet their needs.
18 That finding is not affected by the circumstance that the recipient of the benefit is in fact in one of the situations covered by Article 3(1) of the directive.
19 Indeed, in the judgment in Smithson (cited above) the Court held with regard to a housing benefit that the fact that some of the risks listed in Article 3(1) of Directive 79/7 were taken into account in order to grant a higher benefit was not sufficient to bring that benefit as such within the scope of the directive.
20 Consequently, exclusion from the scope of Directive 79/7 is justified a fortiori where, as in the cases at issue in the main proceedings, the law sets the amount of the theoretical needs of the persons concerned, used to determine the benefit in question, independently of any consideration relating to the existence of any of the risks listed in Article 3(1) of the directive.
25 In this connection, it should be noted that the Court has interpreted that provision as meaning that Directive 76/207 was not intended to apply in social security matters (see the judgment in Case 192/85 Newstead v Department of Transport
[1987] ECR 4753, paragraph 24).
26 Nevertheless, in view of the fundamental importance of the principle of equality of treatment, the Court has made it clear that that exception to the scope of the directive must be interpreted strictly (see the judgment in Case 152/84 Marshall v Southampton and South-West Hampshire Area Health Authority [1986] ECR 723, paragraph 36).
27 It follows that, because of the risk of detracting from the objective of Directive 76/207, a scheme of benefits cannot be excluded from the scope of the directive solely because, formally, it is part of a national social security system.
28 Nevertheless, such a scheme will fall within the scope of that directive only if its subject-matter is access to employment, including vocational training and promotion, or working conditions.
31 Accordingly, the answer to the third question must be that Directive 76/207 is to be interpreted as not applying to a social security scheme, such as supplementary allowance or income support, simply because the conditions of entitlement for receipt of the benefits may be such as to affect the ability of a single parent to take up access to vocational training or part-time employment.