Caisse nationale des prestations familiales v Salim Lachheb and Nadia Lachheb.
Date: 2013-10-24
28. Specifically, the Court has repeatedly held that the distinction between benefits excluded from the scope of Regulation No 1408/71 and those which fall within its scope is based essentially on the constituent elements of each particular benefit, in particular its purposes and the conditions on which it is granted, and not on whether a benefit is classified as a social security benefit by national legislation (see Case C‑78/91 Hughes  [1992] ECR I‑4839, paragraph 14). Further, the Court has made it clear that characteristics which are purely formal must not be considered relevant criteria for the classification of benefits (See Case C‑228/07 Petersen  [2008] ECR I‑6989, paragraph 21 and the case-law cited). Consequently, the fact that a benefit is governed by national tax law is not conclusive for the purpose of evaluating its constituent elements.
30. According to settled case-law, a benefit may be regarded as a social security benefit in so far as it is granted to the recipients, without any individual and discretionary assessment of personal needs, on the basis of a legally defined position and relates to one of the risks expressly listed in Article 4(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 (see, inter alia, Case C‑503/09 Stewart  [2011] ECR I‑6497, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited).
32. Moreover, the Court has already held that the method by which a benefit is financed is immaterial for the purposes of its classification as a social security benefit, as is clear from the fact that under Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1408/71 non-contributory benefits are not excluded from the scope of that regulation (see Hughes , paragraph 21). Similarly, the Court has made it clear that the legal mechanism by which the Member State implements the benefit has no bearing on the question of whether that measure is to be classified as a social security benefit (see, to that effect, Case C‑85/99 Offermanns  [2001] ECR I‑2261, paragraph 46).
33. In the second place, it is necessary to determine the precise nature of the measure at issue in the main proceedings. In order to distinguish between different categories of social security benefit, the risk covered by each benefit must be taken into consideration (Case C‑406/04 De Cuyper  [2006] ECR I‑6947, paragraph 27).
34. Specifically, Article 1(u)(i) of Regulation No 1408/71 provides that ‘the term family benefits  means all benefits in kind or in cash intended to meet family expenses’. In this regard, the Court has held that family benefits are intended to provide social assistance for workers with dependent families in the form of a contribution by society towards their expenses (see Case 104/84 Kromhout  [1985] ECR 2205, paragraph 14, and Joined Cases C‑216/12 and C‑217/12 Hliddal and Bornand  [2013] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 54 and the case-law cited).
35. The expression ‘to meet family expenses’ in Article 1(u)(i) of Regulation No 1408/71 is to be interpreted as referring, in particular, to a public contribution to a family’s budget to alleviate the financial burdens involved in the maintenance of children ( Offermanns , paragraph 41, and Case C‑333/00 Maaheimo  [2002] ECR I‑10087, paragraph 25).