C-272/90
ECLI:EU:C:1991:159
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61990CC0272
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
VAN NOORDEN
O P I N I O N OF MR A D V O C A T E GENERAL TESAURO delivered on 18 April 1 9 9 1 *
Mr President, Initially, the ASSEDIC informed Mr Van Members of the Court, Noorden that he was entitled to unem- ployment benefit for 27 months; however, he received benefits for only three months.
1. The Tribunal de Grande Instance, Valence, has requested the Court to give a The ASSEDIC's change of position was preliminary ruling as to whether Articles 7 prompted by Circular No 86-19 issued by and 58 to 66 of the EEC Treaty and Article U N E D I C (national association responsible 67 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the for coordinating the activities of the various Council ' allow a Member State to withhold ASSEDICs), according to which, as from unemployment benefits from a Community 1 July 1986, a Community worker is worker where he has never been subject to entitled to unemployment benefits only if the legislation of the Member State in his most recent employment was in France. question.
The ASSEDIC's decision not to continue paying benefits to Mr Van Noorden beyond Referring to the Report for the Hearing for a period of three months was challenged by matters of detail, I will briefly summarize him before the national court, which the facts at issue in the main proceedings. decided to seek a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice.
2. Mr Van Noorden, a Dutch citizen, worked from 1947 to 30 June 1985 in 3. The question submitted does not raise various States of the Community particular problems, in view of the clarity of (Netherlands, Belgium and Federal Republic the applicable rules. The provisions of of Germany) and on 27 May 1986 estab- Article 67(1) and (2) of Regulation No lished his residence in France (his wife being 1408/71 require that, for the acquisition, French) where he registered locally as being retention or recovery of the right to unem- available for employment. He then asked ployment benefits, account be taken, to the the ASSEDIC (organization responsible for extent necessary, of periods of insurance or paying unemployment allowances) for employment completed under the legislation Ardèche and Drôme to pay him unem- of any other Member State. However, ployment benefits under French legislation. pursuant to paragraph 3 of the same article, the grant of unemployment benefits is to be * Original language: Iulian. conditional upon the unemployed person's 1 — OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416. having lastly completed periods of insurance
I - 2549
OPINION OF MR TESAURO —CASE C-272/90
or of employment 'in accordance with the since Mr Van Noorden has never been provisions of the legislation under which the subject to French social security legislation benefits are claimed': in other words, he he cannot be entitled to benefits, under must have completed periods of insurance Article 67 of Regulation No 1408/71. or of employment in the State in which he claims benefit. In that connection, and in further confir- mation of my observations so far, I should That is also expressly confirmed by Article point out that the Commission submitted to 69(l)(c) of the same regulation which, the Council a proposal for the amendment laying down the conditions for continuing of Regulation No 1408/71, 2 which relates entitlement to benefits for an unemployed specifically to unemployed workers, in worker who goes to a Member State other which it is proposed, inter alia, that an than the State competent for the payment of Article 69(a) be inserted specifically to benefits (which is precisely what happened provide for the payment of unemployment in the present case), limits that entitlement benefits to unemployed workers who to a maximum period of three months as transfer their residence to a Member State from the date on which the person with which they have close links (as might concerned ceased to be available to the be Mr Van Noorden's case), placing them employment services of the State which he on the same footing as workers who were has left. It is absolutely clear, therefore, that subject to the legislation of that State when payment of the benefits by the institution in last employed. the State to which the unemployed person has moved will give rise to reimbursement under Article 70(1); however, that point is It need merely be added that Articles 7 and not at issue in the present case. 58 to 66 of the Treaty do not conduce to any other solution, in so far as there is 4. It is therefore obvious that the ASSEDIC nothing in the provisions at issue here to was correct to pay Mr Van Noorden unem- indicate any incompatibility with the Treaty ployment benefit only for three months; provisions referred to.
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:
'The relevant Community law, in particular Article 67 of Regulation (EEC) N o 1408/71, does not prevent a Member State from withholding unemployment benefits from a worker beyond the maximum period of three months provided for in Article 69 of that regulation where the worker in question has never been subject to the social security legislation of the Member State concerned.'
2 — OJ 1980 C 169, p. 22.
I - 2550