Luxembourg, 24/01/2007 (Agence Europe) - The European Court of Justice made a judgement on 16 January that called for the French Appeals Court to reconsider the refusal to Spanish national José Perez Naranjo's request for allowances in addition to the French pension he has been receiving since 1991. According to the Court of Justice's examination in case C-265/05, Mr Naranjo's argument is without grounds. The Court of Justice recognised the pronounced complexity of the case and is calling on the French authorities to verify the precise nature of the factors it has put forward in its argument.
Mr Naranjo was born in 1931 and is currently living in Spain after having worked in France between 1957 and 1964. To supplement his old age pension paid him from the French system, he requested a “supplementary allocation from the National Solidarity Fund (law of 30 June 1956)”, which he was refused on 5 August 1999 with the decision of the Caisse régionale d'assurance maladie (CRAM). He contested this decision in the French courts, which rejected his appeal, so he then went to the Court of Appeal. The latter asked the European Court of Justice whether this allocation could be described as a “special allowance of a non-contributory character”.
This classification is important because it is on this basis that the eligibility of Mr Naranjo to the allocations requested is decided. Naranjo is notably basing his argument on Regulation (EEC) No. 1408/71 of the Council, which stipulates that the funds in question are part of “special allowances of a non-contributory character” (Article 4, paragraph 2 b) which, since 1 June 2002, cannot be exported. Subsequently, Mr Naranjo cannot claim this money because at the time of the date limit he was only 62 years old and not 65 as required.
On the other hand, although the Court of Justice succeeded in challenging the “special” nature of the “contributory” character of this allowance, it would have been necessary to apply Article 19 paragraph 1 of the same regulation that stipulates that allowances which incorporate services provided or cash payments must be paid to eligible beneficiaries, whatever their member state of residency. At the time, the money would have effectively been paid out to Mr Naranjo.
In connection with the first part of the question, the Court rules that this supplementary benefit had to be considered as a special allowance.
In the context of its “contributory” nature, however, the examination turned out to be extremely complex. It involved analysis of the supplementary benefit's financial mechanism in an attempt to calculate to what extent it is based on contributions (which would make it contributory) and to what point it is supported by other sources of income (which would have a rather non-contributory social security characteristic). In these circumstances, the allowance paid in France by the CRAM were reimbursed out of the Old Age Solidarity Fund, whose resources mainly come from the social contribution (contribution sociale généralisée (CSG) and the social solidarity contribution (CSS) provided by different companies. After a lengthy examination of all the links in the chain of the payments, and after having received additional information from the French authorities, the Court concluded that “the link between the said contribution and the supplementary allowance does not appear sufficiently identifiable for this allowance to qualify as a non-contributory allowance”.
In other words, the supplementary benefit is well and truly “special” and “non-contributory”; the regulation under challenge, therefore, is coherent as it stands and applies to these allowances. Mr Naranjo is not eligible for these allowances.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that the Court acknowledged that it was at the very limit of its competencies. A French-speaking regional Court spokesperson explained that, “We feel good…that the Court had to settle a real problem” raised by the case. Although it strove to reach a decision, despite the complexity of the case and lack of available information, it refrained from making a definitive ruling and it is therefore up to the French Court to “verify the exact nature of the factors it has put forward in its argument” before deciding the fate of Mr Naranjo's supplementary benefit. (cd)