WWW.THESIS.DISLIB.INFO
FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Online materials, documents
 
<< HOME
CONTACTS



Pages:     | 1 || 3 |

«JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 14 December 2007 (Failure by a Contracting Party to fulfil its obligations – Article 4(1) and (2a) of Regulation EEC 1408/71 ...»

-- [ Page 2 ] --

30 Reference is made to the Report for the Hearing for a fuller account of the facts, the procedure and the pleas and arguments of the parties, which are mentioned or discussed hereinafter only in so far as is necessary for the reasoning of the Court.

–  –  –

31 The application is based on the plea that Liechtenstein has failed to fulfil its obligations pursuant to Articles 19(1) and (2), 25(1) and 28(1) of Regulation 1408/71 by maintaining in force a residence requirement for granting the helplessness allowance.

32 ESA argues that the listing of the helplessness allowance in Annex IIa to Regulation 1408/71 does not have constitutive effect. Reference is made to the ECJ’s judgments in Cases C-215/99 Jauch [2001] ECR I-1901 (hereinafter “Jauch”), at paragraphs 16–22; C-43/99 Leclere and Deaconescu [2001] ECR Iat paragraph 36; C-160/02 Skalka [2004] ECR I-5613 (hereinafter “Skalka”), at paragraphs 19–21; C-154/05 Kersbergen-Lap [2006] ECR I-6249 (hereinafter “Kersbergen-Lap”); and, concerning Annex II to Regulation 1408/71, C-286/03 Hosse [2006] ECR I-1771 (hereinafter “Hosse”), at paragraph 22.

33 Accordingly, ESA contends that despite the listing in Annex IIa, the Court must assess whether the allowance fulfils the criteria under Article 4(2a) or whether the allowance falls under Article 4(1), as these provisions are mutually exclusive.

34 ESA details how the ECJ has found German and Austrian care allowances not to fall under Article 4(2a) but rather under Article 4(1)(a) as sickness benefits in cash. It is maintained that the Liechtenstein helplessness allowance is the same kind of benefit as those care allowances. Particular reference is made to Case C-160/96 Molenaar [1998] ECR I-843 (hereinafter “Molenaar”), Jauch, Hosse and Joined Cases C-502/01 and C-31/02 Gaumain-Cerri and Barth [2004] ECR I-6483 (hereinafter “Gaumain-Cerri”).

35 ESA further emphasises how the ECJ has underlined that the provisions of Regulation 1408/71 must be interpreted in light of the objective of Article 42 EC, which is to contribute to the establishment of the greatest possible freedom of movement for migrant workers. The aims of Articles 39–42 EC would not be attained if, as a consequence of the exercise of their right to freedom of movement, workers were to lose the social security advantages guaranteed to them by the legislation of one Member State. Particular reference is made to Hosse, at paragraphs 24–25.

–  –  –

the provisions of the Regulation itself is purely one of interpretation between different provisions in the same legal instrument.

37 While, according to ESA, the Defendant argued during the pre-litigation procedure that the inclusion of the Liechtenstein benefit should be treated in a manner different from the inclusion of benefits from other Contracting Parties, no statements by the Contracting Parties supporting that view have been adduced. Nor was any specific adaptation stipulating that the case law of the ECJ should not apply to Liechtenstein negotiated. Furthermore, referring to the Defendant’s argument during the pre-litigation procedure that the nonexportability of the benefit was of particular importance to Liechtenstein, ESA finds no reason to believe that the Defendant is the only State having attached importance to the non-exportability of a particular benefit. Both under EC law and in the EEA, a given benefit can only be included in the Annex if the other Member States/Contracting Parties agree thereto, and both in the EU and in the EEA, one must expect that the other States studied the benefit in question before giving that consent.

38 Turning to the application of Article 4(1) in the present case, ESA submits that according to the ECJ, a benefit may be regarded as a social security benefit within the meaning of Article 4(1) in so far as it is: first, granted without any individual or discretionary assessment of personal needs to recipients on the basis of a legally defined position, and second, provided that it concerns one of the risks expressly listed in Article 4(1) of Regulation 1408/71. Reference is made to Cases 249/83 Hoeckx [1985] ECR 973, at paragraphs 12–14, 122/84 Scrivner [1985] 1027, at paragraphs 19–21, and C-78/91 Hughes [1992] ECR I-4839 (hereinafter “Hughes”), at paragraph 15. Moreover, the ECJ has found that benefits to persons reliant on care “must be regarded as ‘sickness benefits’ within the meaning of Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71”. Reference is made to Hosse, at paragraph 38.

39 ESA submits that the helplessness allowance is granted on the basis of legally defined criteria which, if met, confer entitlement to the benefit. The competent authority has no power to take account of other personal circumstances and thus no discretion to assess personal need on the basis of criteria other than those defined in the law.

40 As to the second condition for Article 4(1) to be applied, ESA acknowledges that there is, in medical terms, a difference between sickness (which is expressly listed in Article 4(1)) and reliance on care, as argued by the Defendant. However, to ESA this difference is immaterial for the classification of the allowance under Regulation 1408/71. According to ESA, the ECJ has held that the notion of sickness benefits has to be interpreted broadly and that it covers care benefits.





Reference is made to the opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Hosse, at point 53.

– 11 – 41 As regards the link between the allowance and health care, ESA maintains that the helplessness allowance constitutes the same kind of benefit as the care allowances at issue in Molenaar, Jauch, Gaumain-Cerri and Hosse.

42 As to Article 4(2a)(b), ESA points out that a benefit must not only be a “special non-contributory benefit” but also intended “solely” to provide “specific” protection for disabled persons, in order for this provision to apply. However, ESA submits, the helplessness allowance is a general benefit granted to all persons in need of care. Hence, although the allowance is surely of particular advantage to many disabled persons, it is not limited to that group. This is so, as some beneficiaries, in particular the elderly, cannot necessarily be considered as disabled persons. Reference is made to the opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Hosse, at point 79.

43 Presupposing that the helplessness allowance falls under Article 4(1), ESA finally addresses the question of whether the allowance is to be regarded as a benefit in cash or in kind. The ECJ has held, it is admitted, that the term ‘benefits in kind’ does not exclude the possibility that such benefits may comprise payments made by the debtor institution, in particular in the form of direct payments or the reimbursement of expenses. Reference is made to Case 61/65 Vaassen v Beambtenfonds Mijnbedrijf [1966] ECR English special edition 261, at page 278 and Molenaar, at paragraph 31. However, the ECJ has also held that a given benefit cannot be classified as a benefit in kind if it takes the form of financial aid which enables the standard of living of persons requiring care to be improved as a whole, in other words to compensate for the additional expense

brought about by their condition. ESA contends that this will e.g. be the case if:

(i) the benefit is periodical; (ii) the benefit is not subject either to certain expenditure, such as care expenditure, having already been incurred, or a fortiori to the production of receipts for the expenditure incurred; (iii) the allowance is fixed and independent of the costs actually incurred by the recipient in meeting his daily requirements; (iv) recipients are to a large extent unfettered in their use of the sums thus allocated to them, e.g. the allowance may be used by the recipients to remunerate a member of their family or entourage who is assisting them on a voluntary basis. This is so, ESA contends, even if the benefit in question is designed to cover certain costs entailed by reliance on care rather than to compensate for loss of earnings on the part of the recipient. Reference is made to Molenaar, at paragraphs 34–35, Gaumain-Cerri, at paragraphs 26–27, Hosse, at paragraph 48, Jauch, at paragraph 35 and Case C-466/04 Herrera [2006] ECR I-5341, at paragraphs 32–33.

44 ESA’s analysis of the case and its conclusions are shared by the Commission.

45 The Defendant, Liechtenstein, notes that in December 2006, Liechtenstein authorities received information that by decision of 6 February 2006, the complainant’s pension fund in his EEA State of residence had retroactively recognised his right to a pension there, with effect as of 1 October 2003. The complainant therefore was not only entitled to draw a pension under Liechtenstein legislation but also under the legislation of the EEA State where he – 12 – resided. In such a situation, Article 27 of Regulation 1408/71 determines that the pensioner shall receive the benefits in question in the country of residence.

Against this background, the Defendant points out that irrespective of the outcome of the present Application, the complainant’s request could not be satisfied by the Liechtenstein authorities, as under the rules of Regulation 1408/71 the Defendant was not the competent State for awarding the benefit in question. Therefore, it is contended, the case should not have been pursued further against the Defendant. It is added that it is up to the Court to decide whether it deems it necessary to deal with the Application or not.

46 The Defendant acknowledges the dynamic character of the EEA Agreement as well as the principle of homogeneity in the EEA. However, it is contended that the entry of the Liechtenstein helplessness allowance into Annex IIa was a matter of great concern when the Principality of Liechtenstein negotiated accession to the EEA Agreement. At that time, Annex IIa was considered as having constitutive effect, meaning that benefits listed therein were recognised as being non-exportable. According to the Defendant, this can be derived from the fact that until 2001 the ECJ did not question whether the listing of a benefit in Annex IIa was compatible with Community law. Reference is made to Cases C-20/96 Snares [1997] ECR I-6057 (hereinafter “Snares”), at paragraph 32, C-297/96 Partridge [1998] ECR I-3467 (hereinafter “Partridge”), at paragraph 33 and C-90/97 Swaddling [1999] ECR I-1075 (hereinafter “Swaddling”), at paragraph

24. In view of Liechtenstein’s accession to the EEA, the helplessness allowance was taken out of the contribution-based system and entered into the tax-financed system. On the basis of these changes, the Contracting Parties agreed to enter the helplessness allowance as a non-exportable benefit into Annex IIa to Regulation 1408/71, by EEA Council Decision No 1/95 of 10 March 1995 on the entry into force of the Agreement on the European Economic Area for the Principality of Liechtenstein (hereinafter “EEA Council Decision 1/95”).

47 According to the Defendant, the non-exportability of the helplessness allowance was a condition sine qua non when acceding to the EEA. The entry in Annex IIa was the result of the accession negotiations and has thus to be considered as the result of a consent amongst the Contracting Parties that the Liechtenstein helplessness allowance does not have to be exported to residents in other EEA States. The fact that the Liechtenstein entry into Annex IIa formed part of EEA Council Decision 1/95 is vital, as this Decision follows the rules of public international law. Hence, the Defendant submits, the Decision is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith. When applying a residence requirement, Liechtenstein is thus relying in good faith on this agreement.

48 It is also noted that in order to vitiate the argument that the Liechtenstein entry into Annex IIa has constitutive effect, ESA refers to judgments of the ECJ which were rendered after the date of signature of the EEA Agreement. According to the Defendant, it goes without saying that under Article 6 EEA such judgments are not binding in EEA law (although pursuant to Article 3(2) SCA “due – 13 – account” has to be paid to relevant developments in the case law of the ECJ after the date of signature of the EEA Agreement).

49 The Defendant and ESA concur that the helplessness allowance qualifies as a non-contributory benefit, as its financing derives solely from compulsory taxation. As opposed to ESA, however, the Defendant contends that the helplessness allowance is a special benefit intended as specific protection for the disabled within the meaning of Article 4(2a)(b) of Regulation 1408/71.

50 The Defendant further submits that the essential criterion for a “sickness benefit”, on the other hand, is the need of a sick person for medical care. However, in Liechtenstein this is provided under the sickness insurance system, while the helplessness allowance is received regardless of any sickness and regardless of any need for medical care.

51 It is admitted that there is a certain link between the two systems. The amount of the domiciliary care benefits awarded by the Sickness Insurance can be reduced if the recipient also draws helplessness allowance. The Defendant notes, however, that domiciliary care benefits do not have to be reduced if the recipient of a helplessness allowance also draws means-tested supplementary benefits or if the allowance has been awarded solely for the purpose of helping the recipient maintain social intercourse. This illustrates the “special” nature of the helplessness allowance as a “mixed” benefit between social security and social assistance.

52 The Defendant stresses that the helplessness allowance differs from the German and Austrian care allowances at issue in Molenaar and Jauch. Those benefits were contribution-based and had a purpose more closely linked to health care.

The Liechtenstein system is not comparable to this.

53 Furthermore, the Defendant contends that the British attendance allowance and the British disability living allowance at issue in Snares and Partridge bear a greater resemblance to the Liechtenstein helplessness allowance.



Pages:     | 1 || 3 |


Similar works:

«Financial Management Support Annex Coordinating Agency: Cooperating Agencies: Department of Homeland Security/Federal All Emergency Management Agency (Stafford Act declarations) Federal agency requesting Federal-toFederal support (non-Stafford Act declarations) INTRODUCTION Purpose The Financial Management Support Annex provides basic financial management guidance for all participants in National Response Framework activities. This includes guidance for all departments and agencies providing...»

«Financial instruments in ESIF programmes 2014-2020 A short reference guide for managing authorities December 2014 EGESIF_14_0038-03 10 December 2014 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Financial instruments in ESIF programmes 2014-2020 A short reference guide for managing authorities This short reference guide is designed to provide an overview of the main elements of the 2014legislation as pertains to financial instruments. Further to feedback from stakeholders it will be supplemented with more detailed...»

«Page 2 – Charles W. Grim, D.D.S., M.H.S.A.We recommend that IHS ensure that Lawton Hospital: 1. establishes controls to complete credentialing and privileging reviews in a timely manner, such as a computerized credentialing system to track and monitor the status of its practitioners;2. assigns a sufficient number of staff to adequately perform the credentialing and privileging processes before the practitioners provide patient care; and 3. provides sufficient training to staff assigned to...»

«SAMSON RAPHAEL HIRSCH The Collected Writings VOLUME I THE JEWISH YEAR PART ONE NISSAN AV Publishedfor the Rabbi Dr. Joseph Breuer Foundation and the Samson Raphael Hirsch Publications Society Philipp Feldheim, Inc. New York Jerusalem Iyar II The 67th Psalm and the Centuries of the Crusades-Should we Delete the Sefirah Prayers? For a very long time no land of our own has produced crops of our own. But when we count the days and weeks leading up to the festival of the giving of our Law, we begin...»

«DISSENTING STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI Re: City of Wilson, North Carolina Petition for Preemption of North Carolina General Statute Sections 160A-340 et seq., WC Docket No. 14-115, The Electric Power Board of Chattanooga, Tennessee Petition for Preemption of a Portion of Tennessee Code Annotated Section 7-52-601, WC Docket No. 14-116. In 1999, the State of Tennessee authorized municipal electric systems to provide Internet service within the boundaries of their service areas.1 The...»

«EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL CLIMATE ACTION Directorate A International and Climate Strategy CLIMA.A.3 Monitoring, Reporting, Verification Guidance Document The Accreditation and Verification Regulation Quick guide on verification for operators and aircraft operators Final version, 18 December 2013 This document is part of a series of documents and templates provided by the Commission services for supporting the implementation of Commission Regulation (EU) No 600/2012 of 21 June 2012...»

«Louis Riel Trial The Charges When a man do levy war against our Lord the King in his realm. or be adherent to the King's enemies in his realm, giving them aid and comfort in the realm and elsewhere, and thereof be proveably attainted of open deed by the people of their condition.this shall be one ground upon which the party accused of the offence and legally proved to have committed the offence, shall be held to be guilty of the crime of high treason. 1352 Statute of Treasons (Britain) The...»

«THE LEGEND OF THE PRIVATEER AIRSHIP AND THE CURRENTS THAT LIFTED IT Jeremy Rabkin George Mason University School of Law Green Bag 2d, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 287-304, 2015 George Mason University Legal Studies Research Paper Series LS 15-41 This paper is available on the Social Science Research Network at ssrn.com/abstract=2675327 THE LEGEND OF THE PRIVATEER AIRSHIP AND THE CURRENTS THAT LIFTED IT Jeremy Rabkin† T of the new millennium reverberated with HE FIRST YEARS echoes from the past. Osama...»

«Provided by the author(s) and University College Dublin Library in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite the published version when available. The Privy Council appeal as a minority safeguard for the Title Protestant community of the Irish Free State, 1922-1935 Author(s) Mohr, Thomas Publication 2012-10 date Publication Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 63 (3): 365-395 information Publisher Queen's University Belfast. School of Law Link to online...»

«SEC NEWS DIGEST Issue 98-209 October 29, 1998 COMMISSION ANNOUNCEMENTS DAVID BECKER AND MEYER EISENBERG NAMED DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSELS Chairman Levitt today named David Becker and Meyer Eisenberg Deputy General Counsels in the Office of the General Counsel. Mr. Becker and Mr. Eisenberg, both seasoned securities attorneys, will succeed Paul Gonson as Deputy General Counsel. Mr. Becker joined the Commission this week and Mr. Eisenberg will begin his duties December 1. Chairman Levitt said, 1 am...»

«People v. Lindsey Scott Topper. 16PDJ004. July 27, 2016. Following a sanctions hearing, the Presiding Disciplinary Judge disbarred Lindsey Scott Topper (attorney registration number 17133). Topper’s disbarment took effect on August 31, 2016. Topper agreed to represent two clients and accepted retainers from each of them, but he performed little to no work on their cases. He then precipitously closed his practice and moved to Kentucky without refunding any unearned fees. He never provided...»

«United States Research Legal Cannabis Update Verde Media Group, Inc. 23 March 2014 (OTCBB: VMGI) Michael Anderegg, CFA Senior Research Analyst Researchemail2014@gmail.com Emerging Player Exposed to High Growth Legal Cannabis Industry Reason for Report: Research Update Recent Price: $0.01 Summary and Investment Thesis  Market Data VMGI has recently expanded its scope of operations beyond its Market Capitalization (000) $545.2 Entertainment Division by creating a Biotech Division. Verde Fully...»





 
<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2017 www.thesis.dislib.info - Online materials, documents

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.