Opinion of Mr Advocate

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1. This reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Cour de Cassation du Royaume de Belgique [Court of Cassation of the Kingdom of Belgium] concerns a situation which has already been considered by the Court.

2. Case 733/79 (Laterza) was presented in precisely the same terms and concerned the same countries and the same national laws.

3. That decision is well known both to the parties in this case and to the Cour d'Appel and the Cour de Cassation to which the dispute was subsequently referred.

4. The Fund clearly stated, both in its written observations and its oral submissions, that it was hoping for a departure from the Laterza decision, although it is aware that that decision follows directly from those in earlier cases and that the Court has recently confirmed it.

5. As the Commission points out in its observations, the issue of the validity of Article 77 (2) (b) (i) raises the question of the scope of Article 51 of the Treaty.

6. Observance of the aforementioned principle, which is intended to guarantee the free movement of workers, underlies the Court's decisions in Rossi and Laterza (to cite merely two).

7. In conformity with the observations submitted by the Council, the Commission, the Italian Government and the defendant in the main proceedings, I am of the opinion that the Court should rule that:

1 Translated from the French.

2 Case 733/79, Caisse de Compensation des Allocations Familiales de Charleroi et de Namur v Laterza, f19801 ECR 1915.

3 Paragraph 10, p. 1926.

4 In particular, the judgment of 6. 3. 1973 in Case 100/78, Rossi, [1979] ECR 831.

5 Judgment of 24. 11. 1983 in Case 320/82, D'Amano, [1983] ECR 3811.

6 In this case, Article 51 (3) of the Consolidated Belgian Laws on family allowances, which provides that the benefits in question shall not be payable in respect of children brought up outside the Kingdom.

7 Judgment of 19. 3. 1964 in Case 75/63, Hoekstra (née Unger), [1964] ECR 177 at p. 184.

8 Judgment of 9. 6. 1964 in Case 92/63, Nonnenmacher, [1964] ECR 281 at p. 288.

9 Judgment of 15. 7. 1964 in Case 100/63, Kalsbeek (née van der Veen, [1964] ECR 565 at pp. 573 and 574.

10 Paragraph 12.

11 Under 2 above.