Opinion of Mr Advocate General Van Gerven delivered on 12 June 1990

1 Original language: Dutch.

2 Updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6, Annex I).

3 Judgment in Case 24/74 Caisse régionale d'assurance maladie v Biason [1974] ECR 999, paragraphs 9 to 12.

4 Judgment in Joined Cases 379/85 to 381/85 and 93/86 CRAM Rhône-Alpes v Giletti [1986] ECR 955.

5 Judgment in Case 147/87 Zoom v Cramif [1987] ECR 5511, paragraph 9. Reference may also be made to the judgment in Case 139/82 Piscitello v INPS [1983] ECR 1427, in which the Court came to the same conclusion in connection with an Italian allowance of the same kind for old people.

6 Judgment in Case 187/73 Callemeyn v Belgium [1974] ECR 553, paragraph 12.

7 In its judgment in Case 313/86 Lenoirv Caisse d'allocations familiales des Alpes-Marilimes [1988] ECR 5391, paragraph 16, the Court admittedly acknowledged in connection with a dependent child allowance for Eensioners (Anicie 77 of Regulation No 1408/71) that a enefit designed to cover certain costs incurred at the beginning of the school year is in most cases closely linked with the social environment and therefore the place where the recipients reside. In the same paragraph of that judgment, however, the Court considered that, in the case of ordinary family allowances which are granted by reference to the number and the age of the members of the family, the place of residence was unimportant. Accordingly, the judgment in Lenoir follows the aforesaid line of decisions in which the Court brings the contested supplementary allowance within the scope of Regulation No 1408/71.