Opinion of Advocate General Darmon delivered on 1 July 1992

1 Original language: French.

2 See point 7 of the Commissioner's interim decision, Annex I to the Adjudication Officer's observations.

3 Ibid., points 3, 4, 7 and 8.

4 Regulation of 21 Mareli 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Council 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, version annexed to Regulation No 2001/83, OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6.

5 Regulation of 13 June 1985 amending 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 Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ 1985 L 160, p. 1).

6 Annex II to the Adjudication Officer's observations, points 12 and 13.

7 See Section 224 of the Irish Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 1981 and Rule 2 of the Social Welfare (Children's Allowances) (Normal Residence) Rules 1974.

8 Regulation of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, version annexed to Regulation No 2001/83, OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6.

9 Since the amendment of Article 73 by Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3427/89 of 30 October 1989, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 (OJ 1989 L 331, p. 1).

10 Article 76 was amended by Article 1 of Regulation No 3427/89.

11 Emphasis added.

12 That suspension is up to the amount provided for in the legislation of the State of residence.

13 See point 4 of my Opinion in Case 104/84 Kromhout v Ritad van Arbeid [1985] ECR 2211.

14 Article 74 designates the State responsible for providing family benefits when members of the family of an unemployed person arc residing in another State. It is not relevant here.

15 Annex I to the Adjudication Officer's observations, point 3.

16 Ibid., point 4.

17 Case 100/78 [1979] ECR 831, paragraph 17.

18 Case 149/82 [1983] ECR 171.

19 Ibid., paragraph 19.

20 See the twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth recitals in the pre-amble to Regulation No 1660/85.

21 Regulation of 18 July 1989 amending 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 Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ 1989 L 224, p. 1).

22 Regulation of 30 April 1992 amending 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 Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ 1992 L 136, p. 28). Article 2(1) of this regulation is applicable from 15 January 1986.

23 Amendments made by Regulation No 2332/89 are shown in italics; those made by Regulation No 1249/92 are shown in bold.

24 Sec the Commissioner's final decision, point 11, Annex II to the Adjudication Oificer's observations.

25 See the Adjudication Officer's observations, point 7.6.

26 Case 227/81 [1982] ECR 1991.

27 Ibid., point 11.

28 Case 104/80 [1981] ECR 503.

29 Ibid., point 7.

30 Ibid., point 12.

31 That general provision lays down that Regulation No 1408/71 can neither confer nor maintain the right to several benefits of the same kind for one and the same period of compulsory insurance.

32 Judgment in Case 168/88, Dammer v Securex and Another [1989] ECR 4553, point 10, emphasis added; see also S. Van Raepenbusch, La sécurité sodate des personnes qui circulent a l'intérieur de la CEE, No 222, p. 351, ed. E. Story-Scientia, 1992.

33 Case 24/88 [1989] ECR 1905.

34 Points 11 and 12, ibid., pp. 1914 and 1915.

35 See the Opinion of Advocate General Mayras in Case 9/79 Koschniscke v Raad van Arbeid [1979] ECR 2717.

36 Cited above.

37 Ibid., point 15.

38 Case 60/85 [1986] ECR 2365.

39 See the Opinion of Advocate General Sir Gordon Slynn, ibid., at p. 2367.

40 Ibid., paragraph 12 of the judgment.

41 Since its amendment by Article 1 of Regulation No 3427/89, cited above.

42 Case 302/84 [1986] ECR 1821.

43 Ibid., paragraph 13.

44 See Annex I to the Commission's observations.

45 Sec Form E 411 box 2: Spouse or other person whose entitlement to benefits in the country of residence of the members of the family must be verified (emphasis added).

46 Cited above.

47 See on this point Case 102/76, Perenboom v Inspecteur der Directe Belastingen, Nijmegen [1977] ECR 815.

48 As well as the rules against overlapping benefits contained in other regulations which complement Title III, such as Regulation No 574/72.

49 For another example of the application of Article 13(2)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71 in the absence of a specific Community provision, see the judgment in Case 58/87 Rebniami v Bundesversicheritngsanstalt für Angestellte [1988] ECR 3467.

50 See the thirteenth and fourteenth recitals in the preamble to Regulation No 1660/85.

51 Case 168/88 Dammer v Securex and Another [1989] ECR 4553, paragraphs 15 and 16.

52 Judgment in Case 191/83 Salzano v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit [198-1] ECR 3741, paragraphs 10 and 11; judgment in Case 134/77 Raggazzoni v Assubel [1978] ECR 983, paragraph 12.

53 See for example Article 20 of Regulation No 1408/71.

54 For an example of the application of that article application to frontier workers, see the judgment in the Beeck case, cited above.

55 Robarás v Insttrance Officer, cited above, paragraph 15, final sentence.

56 Judgment in Kromhout, cited above, paragraph 21.

57 Judgment in Beeck cited above, paragraph 12; judgment in Case 153/84 Ferraioli v Deutsche Bundespost [1986] ECR 1401; judgment in Georges v ONAFTS, cited above.

58 Cited above; that provision applies from 15 January 1986.