European Commission v Slovak Republic.
Date: 2015-09-16
21. Second, it should be borne in mind that it follows from Article 120(c) of the Rules of Procedure and the relevant case-law that an application must state the subject-matter of the proceedings and a summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based, and that that statement must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare its defence and the Court to rule on the application. It is therefore necessary for the essential points of law and of fact on which a case is based to be indicated coherently and intelligibly in the application itself and for the heads of claim to be set out unambiguously so that the Court does not rule ultra petita  or indeed fail to rule on an objection (see, to that effect, judgments in Commission  v Czech Republic , C‑343/08, EU:C:2010:14, paragraph 26 and the case-law cited, and Commission  v Spain , C‑360/11, EU:C:2013:17, paragraph 26).
30. In that connection, it is immaterial whether or not the Christmas bonus is financed in the same manner as the pension itself, as such a requirement would be contrary to Article 3(2) of Regulation No 883/2004, would considerably undermine the effectiveness of that regulation, and also cannot be inferred from the judgment in Noteboom  (C‑101/04, EU:C:2005:51, paragraph 27) because the use of the adverb ‘moreover’ to indicate the appropriate mode of financing for the benefits concerned indicates that that element was not indispensable to the Court’s reasoning.
44. It is to be remembered, as a preliminary point, that, according to settled case-law, in proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations it is incumbent upon the Commission to prove the alleged failure. It is the Commission’s responsibility to place before the Court the information needed to enable the Court to establish that the obligation has not been fulfilled, and in so doing the Commission may not rely on any presumption (see, inter alia, judgments in Commission  v Netherlands , 96/81, EU:C:1982:192, paragraph 6; Commission  v Spain , C‑404/00, EU:C:2003:373, paragraph 26; Commission  v Italy, C‑135/06, EU:C:2007:250, paragraph 26; and Commission  v Greece , C‑305/06, EU:C:2008:486, paragraph 41).
46. It must be recalled that the distinction between benefits excluded from the scope of Regulation No 883/2004 and those which fall within it is based not on whether a benefit is classified as a social security benefit by national legislation, but essentially on the constituent elements of each particular benefit, in particular its purpose and the conditions on which it is granted (judgment in Molenaar , C‑160/96, EU:C:1998:84, paragraph 19).
47. It is settled case-law that a benefit may be regarded as a social security benefit if 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 3(1) of Regulation No 883/2004 (see, inter alia, judgment in da Silva Martins , C‑388/09, EU:C:2011:439, paragraph 38 and the case-law cited).
52. It is true that the Christmas bonus is to be granted or refused and its amount calculated by taking into account the amount of income from pensions received by the beneficiary. However, this is an objective, legally defined criterion which gives entitlement to that bonus without the competent authority being able to take other personal circumstances into consideration. Therefore, the grant of the Christmas bonus is not dependent on an individual assessment of the claimant’s personal needs, which is a characteristic feature of social assistance (see, to that effect, judgments in Hughes , C‑78/91, EU:C:1992:331, paragraph 17; Acciardi , C‑66/92, EU:C:1993:341, paragraph 15; and De Cuyper , C‑406/04, EU:C:2006:491, paragraph 23).
55. In that respect, it should be noted that the essential characteristic of the old-age benefits referred to in Article 3(1)(d) of Regulation No 883/2004 lies in the fact that they are intended to safeguard the means of subsistence of persons who, when they reach a certain age, leave their employment and are no longer required to hold themselves available for work at the employment office (see judgment in Valentini , 171/82, EU:C:1983:189, paragraph 14).
56. Furthermore, the Court has held that an allowance paid as a supplementary allowance granted exclusively to beneficiaries of a retirement and/or survival pension, financed by the same resources that are used to finance those pensions and which is linked to the retirement pension by providing the recipients with means of subsistence ensuring that they may take a holiday, may be classified as an ‘old-age pension’ within the meaning of Article 3(1)(d) of Regulation No 883/2004 (judgment in Noteboom , C‑101/04, EU:C:2005:51, paragraphs 25 to 29).