Judgment_paragraph 1. · Mr. and Mrs. F. v Belgian State (7/75)

1.Mr and Mrs F., who are of Italian nationality, have since 1947 resided in Belgium where Mr F. has been in employment. Their son Renzo, born in Belgium on 29 July 1959, has been handicapped from birth, and is apparently subject to a 100 % invalidity.In August 1973 Mr and Mrs F. made on behalf of their son an application to the Ministry of Social Security for ordinary benefit for the handicapped under the provisions of the Belgian Law of 27 June 1969 on the grant of benefits to the handicapped (Moniteur Belge of 15 July 1969).This Law grants a right to the benefit to Belgian citizens residing in Belgium on condition that they have reached 14 years of age, have a permanent incapacity to work of at least 30 % and do not possess resources exceeding certain limits.The application was rejected on 19 March 1974 on the grounds that the minor, to whom the decision rejecting the application was addressed, not being of Belgian nationality, ‘had not since the age of 20 resided for at least 15 years in all on Belgian territory’. It was subsequently explained that the application had been rejected on the basis of the European Interim Agreement of 11 December 1953 on social security schemes in respect of old age, invalidity and survivors, which under certain conditions allows the Belgian Law to be applied to foreigners.On 19 April 1974 Mr and Mrs F. appealed against this refusal to the Tribunal du Travail of Nivelles.In the course of his opinion as representative of the public interest, on 23 December 1974, the Auditeur du Travail, considering that there was no question but that from the point of view of Belgian law and of the European Interim Agreement the claim was not well founded, raised the question whether the fact that the applicant's father is an employed person might change this situation. On this subject he referred to the Judgments of the Court of Justice of 11 April 1973(Michel S, Case 76/72, [1973] ECR 457) and of 28 May 1974(Callemeyn, Case 187/73, [1974] ECR 553) and suggested to the Tribunal du Travail that two questions on the interpretation of Regulations Nos 1612/68 and 1408/71 be referred to the Court of Justice of the European Communities.The Court considered that the interpretation which, as regards the person who must fulfil the conditions of residence, the Belgian Administration placed upon the European Interim Agreement ‘appears’, at least at first sight, to be illogical and concluded that the conditions referred to must be met by the parents and not by the children. The Tribunal added: ‘However, this solution may do no more than transfer the problem elsewhere, in that it does not resolve the situation at various stages, that is to say, at the age limit of 18 years (384 C.C.), 21 years (389 C.C.) and 25 years, these being the stages at which the right is progressively vested in the handicapped person himself and no longer in the person responsible for him. It therefore seems that the wisest course is to follow the opinion of the Auditeur's Department and to make a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Communities, on the basis of Article 177 of the EEC Treaty, requesting an answer to the two questions proposed, adding a third question reflecting the concern expressed in the previous paragraph.’In the light of these consideratons, the Tribunal by order of 13 January 1975 decided to suspend proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, in accordance with Article 177 of the EEC Treaty:1. Do the provisions of Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community include the benefits laid down by the Belgian Law of 27 June 1969 to the extent to which they concern handicapped children of employed persons?2. Does the scheme for the regulation of benefits for handicapped persons set up by the Belgian Law of 27 June 1969, to the extent to which it concerns the childeren of employed persons, fall within the ambit of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14. 6. 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Comunity?3. In the event of a reply in the affirmative, do minors who are entitled to benefit by reason of the fact that their parents fulfil the conditions at the time when that scheme becomes applicable, remain entitled to benefit at the various stages of attainment of their majority, without at that time having personally to fulfil the conditions as to residence required up to that time of their parents?