OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE-GENERAL TRABUCCHI

DELIVERED ON 16 DECEMBER 1975 (*1)

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

By a decision dated 13 July 1962 the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia granted Mrs Chantal Adlerblum the right to a pension as compensation for physical injuries caused by persecution on racial grounds. This decision was based on the Federal Law of 29 June 1956.

Taking this pension into account the Commission de Recours Gracieux de la Caisse Nationale d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Salariés refused to grant the increase in pension allowable for a dependant spouse claimed by Mr Jacob Adlerblum who was the beneficiary of an old-age pension in France. The decision was founded on the French Decree of 29 December 1945 which lays down in Article 71 (6) the maximum figure for personal resources in excess of which the said increase cannot be granted.

In the appeal against this decision which Mr Adlerblum lodged with the Commission de Première Instance du Contentieux de la Sécurité Sociale et de la Mutualité Sociale Agricole of Paris, he asserted that the pension received by his wife should not have been taken into account. This pension should in fact be treated as a social assistance benefit and as such it should not be included in the assessment of resources referred to in Article 3 of the French Decree of 1 April 1964.

In order to clarify this last point the Commission de Première Instance, on the basis of Article 177 of the EEC Treaty, has requested the Court to decide whether the benefit granted to Mrs Adlerblum by the decision of 13 July 1962 by the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia on the basis of Article 195 of the Federal Law of 29 June 1956 constitutes a social assistance benefit.

In the light of the pleadings and in particular of the observations submitted by the parties I must point out that the definition of the nature of the benefit granted to Mrs Adlerblum in Germany for the purposes of the implementation of Article 3 of the French Decree of 1 April 1964, and thus of the review of the decision of the French social security institution, pertains exclusively to the interpretation of national law.

Furthermore there is ample evidence to emphasize the fact that Community social security legislation itself excludes from its scope benefits provided for victims of war or its consequences: see Article 4 (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71.

I therefore suggest that the Court should reply to the French court to the effect that the problems set out do not relate either to the interpretation of Community law or to the validity of a Community act and consequently that they do not come within the jurisdiction conferred upon this Court by Article 177 of the EEC Treaty.

(*1) Translated from the Italian.

—