Ministre de l'Action et des Comptes publics v Mr and Mrs Raymond Dreyer.
Date: 2019-03-14
29


As a preliminary matter, it is to be noted that, under Article 8 of the Agreement on the free movement of persons, the contracting parties are to make provision, in accordance with Annex II to the agreement, for the coordination of social security systems with the aim in particular of determining the legislation applicable and paying benefits to persons residing in the territory of the contracting parties. Section A(1) of Annex II to the Agreement on the free movement of persons provides for the application, between the parties, of Regulation No 883/2004. Thus, and since, according to Article 1(2) of Annex II to that agreement, ‘the term “Member State(s)” contained in the legal acts referred to in section A of this Annex shall be understood to include Switzerland in addition to the States covered by the relevant legal acts of the European Union’, the provisions of that regulation also cover the Swiss Confederation (judgment of 21 March 2018, Klein Schiphorst, C‑551/16, EU:C:2018:200, paragraph 28).
30


In those circumstances, the situation of the applicants in the main proceedings, nationals of a Member State and insured under the Swiss social security scheme, falls within the scope of Regulation No 883/2004 (see, by analogy, judgment of 21 March 2018, Klein Schiphorst, C‑551/16, EU:C:2018:200, paragraph 29).
31


As regards the substance of the question referred, it should be noted that the distinction between benefits falling within the scope of Regulation No 883/2004 and those which are outside it is based essentially on the constituent elements of each benefit, in particular its purpose and the conditions for its grant, and not on whether it is classified as a social security benefit by national legislation (see, to that effect, inter alia judgments of 5 March 1998, Molenaar, C‑160/96, EU:C:1998:84, paragraph 19; of 16 September 2015, Commission v Slovakia, C‑433/13, EU:C:2015:602, paragraph 70, and of 25 July 2018, A (Assistance for a disabled person), C‑679/16, EU:C:2018:601, paragraph 31).
32


The Court has consistently held that a benefit may be regarded as a ‘social security benefit’ in so far as it is granted to recipients without any individual and discretionary assessment of personal needs on the basis of a legally defined position and provided that it relates to one of the risks expressly listed in Article 3(1) of Regulation No 883/2004 (see, to that effect, inter alia judgments of 27 March 1985, Hoeckx, 249/83, EU:C:1985:139, paragraphs 12 to 14; of 16 September 2015, Commission v Slovakia, C‑433/13, EU:C:2015:602, paragraph 71, and of 25 July 2018, A (Assistance for a disabled person), C‑679/16, EU:C:2018:601, paragraph 32).
33


It must be borne in mind that the first condition referred to in the previous paragraph is satisfied if a benefit is granted in the light of objective criteria which, if they are met, confer entitlement to the benefit, the competent authority having no power to take account of other personal circumstances (see, to that effect, inter alia, judgments of 16 July 1992, Hughes, C‑78/91, EU:C:1992:331, paragraph 17; of 16 September 2015, Commission v Slovakia, C‑433/13, EU:C:2015:602, paragraph 73, and of 25 July 2018, A (Assistance for a disabled person), C‑679/16, EU:C:2018:601, paragraph 34).
34


In that regard, the Court has previously held, in relation to benefits which are granted, refused or the amount of which is calculated by taking into account the recipient’s resources, that the grant of such benefits does not depend on an individual assessment of the applicant’s personal needs, provided that an objective, legally defined criterion gives entitlement to the benefit without the competent authority being able to take other personal circumstances into consideration (see, to that effect, judgments of2 August 1993, Acciardi, C‑66/92, EU:C:1993:341, paragraph 15; of 18 July 2006, De Cuyper, C‑406/04, EU:C:2006:491, paragraph 23, and of 16 September 2015, Commission v Slovakia, C‑361/13, EU:C:2015:601, paragraph 52).
40


Furthermore, and also contrary to what the French Government submits in its written observations, the APA and the PCH cannot be regarded as ‘special non-contributory cash benefits’ within the meaning of Article 3(3) of Regulation No 883/2004. Since it follows both from the previous considerations and the findings of the referring court set out in paragraph 26 above that both cumulative conditions referred to in paragraph 32 of that judgment are satisfied and that the APA and the PCH must therefore be regarded as ‘social security contributions’, there is no need to ascertain whether each of the benefits may also be regarded as ‘special non-contributory cash benefits’, since the Court has previously held that both classifications are mutually exclusive (see, to that effect, judgments of 21 February 2006, Hosse, C‑286/03, EU:C:2006:125, paragraph 36, and of 16 September 2015, Commission v Slovakia, C‑433/13, EU:C:2015:602, paragraph 45).