Brussels, 10/04/2014 (Agence Europe) - When two member states pay family allowances to the same family, such as when workers travel between the two countries, then the member state where the worker is employed may apply a rule against the overlapping of benefits - even if the worker does not request benefits from the member states of residence - if the worker is entitled to benefits under that country's legislation.
This is how European Court of Justice Advocate General Melchior Wathelet interprets EU Regulation 1408/71 on social security systems for workers moving around within the EU in conclusions published on Thursday 10 April in case C-4/13.
In the case in question, the German wife (working in Germany) of a Belgian working in Belgium continued to receive family allowances from both countries for their son after the family moved to Belgium, although her husband never requested or received family allowances in Belgium. Under the EU regulation, Belgium, as the country of residence, is more responsible for payment of family allowances and therefore, in order to avoid an unfair duplication of benefits, the German family allowance system decided to suspend payment of German family allowances by the amount of Belgian family allowances, only paying the difference. The family took a case to the Bundesfinanzhof in Germany, which referred the matter to the Court of Justice in order to find out under what conditions German benefits systems may, in the absence of any request for family allowances being made in Belgium, apply the anti-overlapping rule and reduce the German benefits by the amount allowed under Belgian law.
In his conclusions, Melchior says that, when a request for benefits has not been made in the member state of residence (Belgium in this case), the EU regulation allows the member state of employment (Germany) to apply the anti-overlapping of benefits rule and is entitled to reduce family allowances by the amount allowed under the law of the country of residence as if the benefits in question had been granted by that country. This option must be explicitly laid down in the legislation of the country of employment in order to ensure that claimants are fully and clearly informed of their rights beforehand. Assuming the German legislation meets this condition (which the German court should verify), Wathelet says that Germany is entitled to apply the anti-overlapping of benefits rule. (FG)