Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)

SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS - FAMILY ALLOWANCES - PURSUIT OF A PROFESSIONAL OR TRADE ACTIVITY BY A WORKER IN ONE MEMBER STATE - RESIDENCE OF MEMBERS OF FAMILY IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE - PURSUIT OF A PROFESSIONAL OR TRADE ACTIVITY BY THE SPOUSE OF THE WORKER IN THE COUNTRY OF RESIDENCE - RIGHTS TO FAMILY BENEFITS OR ALLOWANCES - COMMUNITY RULE AGAINST OVERLAPPING BENEFITS - CONDITIONS FOR THE APPLICATION
( REGULATION NO 1408/71 OF THE COUNCIL , ARTS . 73 AND 76 )

PURSUIT OF A PROFESSIONAL OR TRADE ACTIVITY IN THE STATE IN WHOSE TERRITORY THE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY ARE RESIDING IS NOT A SUFFICIENT CONDITION FOR THE SUSPENSION OF THE ENTITLEMENT CONFERRED BY ARTICLE 73 SINCE IT IS NECESSARY IN ADDITION THAT THE FAMILY BENEFITS SHOULD BE ' ' PAYABLE ' ' UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF THAT MEMBER STATE .

CONSEQUENTLY THE SUSPENSION , UNDER ARTICLE 76 OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 , OF THE ENTITLEMENT TO FAMILY BENEFITS OR ALLOWANCES IN PURSUANCE OF ARTICLE 73 OF THAT REGULATION IS NOT APPLICABLE WHEN THE FATHER WORKS ABROAD IN A MEMBER STATE WHILST THE MOTHER IS EMPLOYED IN THE COUNTRY IN WHICH THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY RESIDE AND HAS NOT ACQUIRED UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF THE SAID COUNTRY OF RESIDENCE A RIGHT TO FAMILY ALLOWANCES EITHER BECAUSE ONLY THE FATHER IS ACKNOWLEDGED TO HAVE THE STATUS OF HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD OR BECAUSE THE CONDITIONS FOR AWARDING TO THE MOTHER THE RIGHT TO PAYMENT OF THE ALLOWANCES HAVE NOT BEEN FULFILLED .

IN CASE 134/77
REFERENCE TO THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY BY THE TRIBUNAL DU TRAVAIL ( LABOUR TRIBUNAL ), BRUSSELS , FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THAT COURT BETWEEN
SILVIO RAGAZZONI
AND
CAISSE DE COMPENSATION POUR ALLOCATIONS FAMILIALES ' ' ASSUBEL ' ' ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE SUSPENSION OF THE ENTITLEMENT TO FAMILY ALLOWANCES PROVIDED FOR BY ARTICLE 76 OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 OF THE COUNCIL OF 14 JUNE 1971 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL , ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION , 1971 ( II ) P . 416 ),

1BY A JUDGMENT OF 25 OCTOBER 1977 , WHICH WAS RECEIVED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 8 NOVEMBER 1977 , THE TRIBUNAL DU TRAVAIL , BRUSSELS , PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY , REQUESTED A PRELIMINARY RULING ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 76 OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 OF THE COUNCIL OF 14 JUNE 1971 ON THE APPLICATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY SCHEMES TO EMPLOYED PERSONS AND THEIR FAMILIES MOVING WITHIN THE COMMUNITY ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL , ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION 1971 ( II ), P . 416 ).

2THE QUESTION HAS BEEN RAISED WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF A DISPUTE BETWEEN THE BELGIAN FUND ' ' ASSUBEL ' ' AND AN ITALIAN WORKER EMPLOYED IN BELGIUM , WHOSE WIFE RESIDES WITH THEIR THREE CHILDREN IN ITALY WHERE SHE PURSUES A PROFESSIONAL OR TRADE ACTIVITY .

3THE BELGIAN INSTITUTION HAS REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ITALIAN WORKER FOR THE PAYMENT IN BELGIUM OF FAMILY ALLOWANCES .

4THE INSTITUTION RELIED UPON ARTICLE 76 OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 WHICH ESTABLISHES RULES OF PRIORITY IN CASES OF OVERLAPPING ENTITLEMENT TO FAMILY ALLOWANCES AND WHICH PROVIDES THAT ' ' ENTITLEMENT TO FAMILY BENEFITS OR FAMILY ALLOWANCES UNDER ARTICLES 73 AND 74 SHALL BE SUSPENDED IF , BY REASON OF THE PURSUIT OF A PROFESSIONAL OR TRADE ACTIVITY , FAMILY BENEFITS OR FAMILY ALLOWANCES ARE ALSO PAYABLE UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF THE MEMBER STATE IN WHOSE TERRITORY THE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY ARE RESIDING ' ' .

5THE FUND INFERS FROM THE FOREGOING THAT THAT PROVISION LAYS DOWN A RULE OF LEGISLATIVE NATURE AND MUST BE UNDERSTOOD AS TAKING PRIORITY AS A COMMUNITY PROVISION WHICH IS APPLICABLE WHENEVER A PROFESSIONAL OR TRADE ACTIVITY IS PURSUED IN THE TERRITORY OF THE MEMBER STATE IN WHICH THE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY RESIDE .

6IN THIS CASE ARTICLE 76 IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY ARTICLE 73 WHEREBY A WORKER SUBJECT TO THE LEGISLATION OF A MEMBER STATE OTHER THAN FRANCE IS ENTITLED TO THE FAMILY ALLOWANCES PROVIDED FOR BY THE LEGISLATION OF THE FIRST MEMBER STATE FOR MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY RESIDING IN THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE AS THOUGH THEY WERE RESIDING ON THE TERRITORY OF THE FIRST MEMBER STATE .

7THE OBJECTION WHICH MAY BE RAISED TO THAT VIEW IS THAT , APART FROM THE FACT THAT ARTICLE 76 IS ONLY INTENDED TO LIMIT THE POSSIBILITY OF OVERLAPPING BENEFITS , PURSUIT OF A PROFESSIONAL OR TRADE ACTIVITY IN THE STATE IN WHOSE TERRITORY THE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY ARE RESIDING IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR THE SUSPENSION OF THE ENTITLEMENT CONFERRED BY ARTICLE 73 SINCE IT IS NECESSARY IN ADDITION THAT THE FAMILY BENEFITS SHOULD BE ' ' PAYABLE ' ' UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF THAT MEMBER STATE .

8FOR FAMILY ALLOWANCES TO BE REGARDED AS ' ' PAYABLE ' ' UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF THE MEMBER STATE IN WHOSE TERRITORY THE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY ARE RESIDING THE LAW OF SUCH STATE OF RESIDENCE MUST RECOGNIZE THE RIGHT TO THE PAYMENT OF ALLOWANCES IN FAVOUR OF THE PERSON IN THAT FAMILY WHO WORKS IN SUCH STATE .

9THE PERSON CONCERNED MUST THUS FULFIL ALL THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED BY THE DOMESTIC LEGISLATION OF THAT STATE IN ORDER TO EXERCISE THAT RIGHT .

10IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT IN THE SITUATION IN WHICH THE DISPUTE AROSE AND ON THE BASIS OF THE PROVISIONS IN FORCE IN ITALY AT THE TIME , ITALIAN LEGISLATION , IN THAT IT DID NOT CONFER THE STATUS OF HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD UPON A MOTHER WHO WAS NEITHER SEPARATED FROM NOR ABANDONED BY HER HUSBAND , PRECLUDED THE RIGHT OF THE FORMER TO RECEIVE FAMILY ALLOWANCES FOR HER CHILDREN .

11IT FOLLOWS THAT THE FAMILY BENEFITS OR ALLOWANCES WERE NOT ' ' PAYABLE ' ' UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF THE MEMBER STATE IN WHOSE TERRITORY THE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY WERE RESIDING .

12THE REPLY TO THE QUESTION MUST ACCORDINGLY BE THAT THE SUSPENSION , UNDER ARTICLE 76 OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 , OF THE ENTITLEMENT TO FAMILY BENEFITS OR ALLOWANCES IN PURSUANCE OF ARTICLE 73 OF THAT REGULATION IS NOT APPLICABLE WHEN THE FATHER WORKS ABROAD IN A MEMBER STATE WHILST THE MOTHER IS EMPLOYED IN THE COUNTRY IN WHICH THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY RESIDE AND HAS NOT ACQUIRED UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF THE SAID COUNTRY OF RESIDENCE A RIGHT TO FAMILY ALLOWANCES EITHER BECAUSE ONLY THE FATHER IS ACKNOWLEDGED TO HAVE THE STATUS OF HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD OR BECAUSE THE CONDITIONS FOR AWARDING TO THE MOTHER THE RIGHT TO PAYMENT OF THE ALLOWANCES HAVE NOT BEEN FULFILLED .

COSTS
13THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE BELGIAN GOVERNMENT , THE ITALIAN GOVERNMENT AND THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES , WHICH HAVE SUBMITTED OBSERVATIONS TO THE COURT , ARE NOT RECOVERABLE .

14AS THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE , IN SO FAR AS THE PARTIES TO THE MAIN ACTION ARE CONCERNED , IN THE NATURE OF A STEP IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THE NATIONAL COURT , THE DECISION AS TO COSTS IS A MATTER FOR THAT COURT .

ON THOSE GROUNDS ,
THE COURT
IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION REFERRED TO IT BY THE TRIBUNAL DU TRAVAIL , BRUSSELS , BY A JUDGMENT OF 25 OCTOBER 1977 , HEREBY RULES :
THE SUSPENSION UNDER ARTICLE 76 OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 , OF THE ENTITLEMENT TO FAMILY BENEFITS OR ALLOWANCES IN PURSUANCE OF ARTICLE 73 OF THAT REGULATION IS NOT APPLICABLE WHEN THE FATHER WORKS ABROAD IN A MEMBER STATE WHILST THE MOTHER IS EMPLOYED IN THE COUNTRY IN WHICH THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY RESIDE AND HAS NOT ACQUIRED UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF THE SAID COUNTRY OF RESIDENCE A RIGHT TO FAMILY ALLOWANCES EITHER BECAUSE ONLY THE FATHER IS ACKNOWLEDGED TO HAVE THE STATUS OF HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD OR BECAUSE THE CONDITIONS FOR AWARDING TO THE MOTHER THE RIGHT TO PAYMENT OF THE ALLOWANCES HAVE NOT BEEN FULFILLED .