Opinion of Mr Advocate General Tesauro delivered on 14 March 1989

1 Original language: Italian.

2 In particular, the judgment of 19 February 1981 in Case 104/80 fleet* v Bundesanstalt jur Arbeit [19811 ECR 503; the judgment of 12 June 1980 in Case 733/79 CCAF v Laterza [1980] ECR 1915; the judgment of 13 November 1984 in Case 191/83 Salzano v Bundesanstalt jur Arbeil [1984] ECR 3741; the judgment of 4 July 1985 in Case 104/84 Krombout v Ráadván Arbeid [IMS] ECR 2205 and the judgment of 23 April 1986 in Case 153/84 Ferraioli v Deutsche Bundespost [1986] ECR 1401.

3 In Kromhout the Court clarified the scope of the anti-overlapping provision contained in the first sentence of Article 10(1)(a) of Regulation No 878/73 of the Council, staling the following in paragraph 14:It is clear from those provisions that family benefits or family allowances are intended to provide social assistance for workers with dependent families in the form of a contribution by society towards their expenses. The rule against overlapping of benefits at issue is designed therefore to prevent duplication of the compensation for those expenses, an excess payment to the worker's family which would not be justified. Accordingly, the rule must be interpreted as having the effect of precluding the payment of parallel social security benefits for one and the same situation in respect of one and the same period.

4 See the similar statement of the Court in regard to the purpose of Article 51 of the EEC Treaty in Case 69/79 Jordens- Vosters v Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Leder- en Lederverwerkende Industrie [1980] ECR 75.