Opinion of Mr Advocate General Mancini

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1. By an order of 19 October 1984, which was received at the Court Registry on 29 October 1984, the Raad van Beroep, Amsterdam asks the Court whether it is in accordance with Article 51 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community and with the provisions of Regulation No 1408/71 ... (in particular the provisions of Point 2 of Part I of Annex VI to that regulation) to refuse, in determining ... the pension of a married man, to grant to his wife, who after 1 January 1957 completed periods in accordance with Point 2 (c) of Part I of the aforementioned Annex VI, the advantages which Netherlands law, and in particular, Articles 1 (a) and 5 of the Royal Decree of 20 December 1956 (Staatsblad No 628), issued pursuant to Article 45 of the Algemene Ouderdomswet [General Law on Old-Age], attaches to periods of insurance. The question arose in proceedings between G. J. J. De Jong, a Netherlands national, and the Sociale Verzekeringsbank, which is the national insurance authority, concerning the amount of the old-age pension to which Mr De Jong is entitled.

2. Mr De Jong was born on 27 July 1918 and married Miss Costantino in Italy on 30 October 1950. Following the marriage the latter, who was born on 4 August 1920, took Netherlands nationality. On 16 February 1951, Mr and Mrs De Jong established their residence in the Netherlands. In 1975, the husband became totally unable to work and from that time received benefits under the Wet op de Arbeidsongeschiktheidsverzekering [Law on Insurance against Incapacity for Work, hereinafter referred to as Law on Incapacity for Work]. On 17 April 1982, the family moved permanently to Italy, where, on 27 July 1983, Mr De Jong celebrated his 65th birthday and thus became entitled to a pension for himself and for his wife.

3. In the course of the procedure before the Court, written observations were submitted by the Netherlands Government, the Verzekeringsbank and the Commission of the European Communities. At an early stage of the proceedings, the Court asked the parties to state whether Mr and Mrs De Jong, after their departure for Italy, could have avoided the reduction of their pension by any method which did not involve continued residence in the Netherlands.

4. On the basis of the foregoing considerations, I propose that, in reply to the question referred to it by the Raad van Beroep, Amsterdam, by an order of 19 October 1984 in the proceedings between G. J. J. De Jong and the Sociale Verzekeringsbank, the Court should give the following ruling:

1 Translated from the Italian.