C-256/86

5. In its judgment of 6 June 1985 the Court 2. As we already know from Case 157/84, 1 first held that a relative in the ascending line the plaintiff is a widow and since September of a migrant worker could not claim the 1976 she has lived with her son, who is in benefit of the said allowance on the basis of salaried employment in France and supports Regulation No 1408/71. However, in order her. to answer all questions of interpretation of Community law which would assist the national court in reaching its decision in the 3. She herself was in receipt of a widow's main proceedings, the Court stated, pension from the Istituto Nazionale della referring to its earlier case-law, that in the Previdenza Soziale (Italian National Social particular case payment of the said benefit Welfare Institution), which amounted in was to be regarded as a social advantage 1981 to only FF 1 000 per month. She within the meaning of Article 7 (2) of Regu- applied for the special old-age allowance lation No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 ('allocation spéciale de vieillesse') which in October 1968 on freedom of movement for 1982 was rejected by the Caisse des dépôts workers within the Community.3 It et consignations, the defendant in the main therefore held: proceedings, on the ground that she failed to satisfy the requirement of 15 years' residence in France as provided for in the European Interim Agreement of 11 '(a) The grant of a special old-age December 1953. allowance which guarantees a minimum income to old persons under conditions such as those laid down by the national 4. When the plaintiff brought an action law applicable to the main proceed- against that decision before the Commission ings constitutes a social advantage within the meaning of Regulation * Translated from the German. 1 — Case 157/84 Marin Frascogna v Caille dci dêpôti et coniig- 2 — Officiai Journal, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416. naliom [1985] ECR 1739. 3 — Officiai Journal, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475.

(b) Article 7 (2) of that regulation must be 'Does the special old-age allowance come interpreted to the effect that the grant within the substantive and personal scope of of such a social advantage may not be Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 made subject to a condition requiring October 1968 on freedom of movement for actual residence in the territory of a workers within the Community?' Member State for a specified number of years if such a condition is not laid down in respect of nationals of that B — Analysis Member State.' 9. If the judgment of the Court of 6 June 1985 in Case 157/84 is properly read, that is the operative part of the judgment in In the proceedings which have been conjunction with the grounds, especially resumed before the Tribunal des affaires de paragraph 21, the question put by the sécurité sociale (Social Security Court), national court is already answered. Nanterre, as the national court is now Accordingly I consider only the following called, the defendant has continued to supplementary observations to be appro- oppose the plaintiff's claim. It contends that priate. the special old-age allowance does not fall within the scope of Regulation No 1612/68; although according to Article 10. The Court had already held in its 7 (2) a worker who is a national of a judgment of 12 July 1984 in Case 261/83 4 Member State and is employed in the that the term 'social advantage', within the territory of another Member State enjoys meaning of Article 7 (2) of Regulation the same social and tax advantages as No 1612/68, also includes for dependent national workers, it is only the worker who relatives in the ascending line of a worker, is entitled to equality of treatment. the income guaranteed to old people by the Moreover, the plaintiff, who is entitled legislation of a Member State. The equality under the law to simple social assistance in of treatment required by Article 7 of the the form of basic domestic social assistance, regulation also excludes discrimination cannot be regarded as a dependent relative against dependent relatives in the ascending in the ascending line of a worker from line of a worker. another Member State; on that ground she does not come within Regulation No 1612/68. 11. However, the dependent relatives of a worker within the meaning of Article 10 of Regulation No 1612/68 are guaranteed equal treatment only indirectly, as the Court 7. The plaintiff on the other hand took the held in its judgment of 18 June 1987 in view that the scope of Regulation Case 316/85. 5 They are entitled to the No 1612/68 covers not only the worker 4 — Case 261/83 Camella Castelli v Office nationale des himself but also members of his family who pensions pour travailleurs salariés [1984] ECR 3199. were lawfully living with him in the territory 5 — Judgment of 18 June 1987 in Case 316/85 Centre public of a Member State. d'aide sociale de Courcelles v Marie-Christine Lebon [1987] ECR2811.

C — Conclusion

In the result, I propose the Court should give the following ruling on the question referred to it:

'If relatives in the ascending line who are supported by a worker who is a national of a Member State and is employed in the territory of another Member State come to live with that worker, then the payment of a special old-age allowance which guarantees old people a minimum income on the conditions laid down in the national law applicable in the main proceedings constitutes a social advantage for the worker within the meaning of Regulation No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968.'

6 — Paragraph 20. 7 — Paragraph 35.