Opinion of Mr Advocate General van Gerven delivered on 24 April 1991

1 Original language: Dutch.

2 As amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 amending and updating Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community and also amending and updating Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6).

3 The arrangements for implementing the second requirement were to be laid down by decree.

4 OJ 1983 L 230, p. 13.

5 Sec Article 4(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71. However, the French Government used that argument only in its reply of 7 March 1986 to the Commission's letter of 4 December 1985.

6 See, for example, judgments in Case 24/74 Caisse Régionale d'Assurance Maladie v Bìason [1974] ECR 999, paragraphs 9 to 12; Joined Cases 379/85, 380/85, 381/85 and 93/86 CRAM Rhône-Alpes v Cileni [1987] ECR 955, paragraphs 9 to 12; Case 147/87 Zaoui v CRAMIF[1987] ECR 5511, paragraph 9.

7 Case C-236/88 Commusion v France (Fonds National de Solidarité) [1990] ECR I-3163). That case concerned a graat of the same supplementary allowance to pensionholders residing in another Member Sate of the Community. See also my Opinion of 12 June 1990 in that case.

8 See the annex to the French Government's rejoinder. It should be noted that at the end of 1989 and beginning of 1990, the French Government had already made a first attempt to amend the legislation at issue. The draft law to amend Article L 815-5 of the CSS was, however, then declared invalid by the Conseil Constitutionnel.

9 Annex V to the Commission's application.

10 See, for example, the judgment in Case 167/73 Commission v French Republic [1974] ECR 359, paragraphs 41 and 42.

11 See the Report for the Hearing, section I., 2.