Opinion of Mr Advocate General Tesauro

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1. The Tribunal de Grande Instance, Valence, has requested the Court to give a preliminary ruling as to whether Articles 7 and 58 to 66 of the EEC Treaty and Article 67 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council allow a Member State to withhold unemployment benefits from a Community worker where he has never been subject to the legislation of the Member State in question.

2. Mr Van Noorden, a Dutch citizen, worked from 1947 to 30 June 1985 in various States of the Community (Netherlands, Belgium and Federal Republic of Germany) and on 27 May 1986 established his residence in France (his wife being French) where he registered locally as being available for employment. He then asked the ASSEDIC (organization responsible for paying unemployment allowances) for Ardèche and Drôme to pay him unemployment benefits under French legislation.

3. The question submitted does not raise particular problems, in view of the clarity of the applicable rules. The provisions of Article 67(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1408/71 require that, for the acquisition, retention or recovery of the right to unemployment benefits, account be taken, to the extent necessary, of periods of insurance or employment completed under the legislation of any other Member State. However, pursuant to paragraph 3 of the same article, the grant of unemployment benefits is to be conditional upon the unemployed person's having lastly completed periods of insurance or of employment in accordance with the provisions of the legislation under which the benefits are claimed: in other words, he must have completed periods of insurance or of employment in the State in which he claims benefit.

4. It is therefore obvious that the ASSEDIC was correct to pay Mr Van Noorden unemployment benefit only for three months; since Mr Van Noorden has never been subject to French social security legislation he cannot be entitled to benefits, under Article 67 of Regulation No 1408/71.

5. In the light of the foregoing considerations, I therefore propose that the Court reply as follows to the question submitted by the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Valence:

1 Original language: Iulian.

2 OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416.

3 OJ 1980 C 169, p. 22.