Opinion of Mr Advocate General Capotorti

Mr Président,

Members of the Court,

1. The question raised by the Belgian Cour de Cassation is expressly stated to relate exclusively to Article 67 (1) of Regulation No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971. The request submitted to the Court of Justice is in substance for an interpretation of the scope of the condition which appears at the end of paragraph (1).

2. The essentia] features of the present case are as follows: the person concerned, after a long period of employment in Italy as a domestic servant, was employed in Belgium for a short time in another capacity. She now claims that she is covered by unemployment insurance in Belgium and for that purpose, since she was employed for such a short period in Belgium, she requests that the two above-mentioned periods of work should be aggregated. It should be emphasized that in Belgium the law does not provide that domestic servants are insured against unemployment.

3. It seems to me clear that this condition relates only to cases in which the competent institution must take into account, for the purposes of aggregation, simply periods of employment as such, which are not recognized as periods of insurance and which were completed under the legislation of another Member Sute.

4. In conclusion, I suggest that the Court of Justice should deliver a ruling in the present case to the effect that:

1 Translated from the Italian.