3.In its introductory remarks the Commission concludes that Mrs C acciolo's residence in Italy was irregular inasmuch as her stay there was not authorized by her Belgian insurance institution. In the Commission's view the crux of the question is therefore whether a claim for payment of sickness benefit in cash, or an appeal against a decision refusing such a claim, is admissible in the circumstances of the present case.As to the interpretation of Article 83 of Regulation No 4 the Commission observes that that article lays down a rule the purpose of which is to facilitate from the administrative sundpoint claims made by migrant workers. Its effects cannot extend beyond establishing the regularity of claims or complaints, inasmuch as submitting them to an institution in another Member State is considered equivalent to submitting them to the competent authority.The Commission considers that the reply to be given to the first two questions calls for an interpretation of Article 19 (2 and (3) of Regulation No 3 because th. Administrative Arrangement between Belgium and Italy, on the basis of which the first two questions were formulated, appears in Annex 6 to Regulation No 4 and is therefore to be substituted solely for the rules for implementing Article 19 of that regulation.The Commission submits that Article 19 (2) makes continued eligibility for benetits, in kind or in cash, subject to an authorization from the competent institution. By analogy with the Court's ruling in Pierik (Case 117/77, judgment of 16 March 1978, [1978] ECR 825), the Commission concludes that the competent authority's power to refuse authorization is restricted by the purpose of the Community regulations itself which is to ensure that a worker may benefit from whatever care his condition requires in any Member State.Therefore, in the Commission's opinion, it follows that in so far as checks on the beneficiary's incapacity for work may be carried out under the provisions adopted either at Community level or under the bilateral agreement, there is no longer any justification for requiring authorization; this conflicts with the principle laid down in Article 51 (b) of the EEC Treaty. To interpret Article 19 (2) of Regulation No 3 as requiring continued eligibility for cash benefits to be subject to authorization from the competent institution would prejudice the fundamental aim of the Treaty embodied in the social security system, which is to establish the most favourable conditions possible for achieving freedom of movement and employment for workers within the Community.As to the third question, which concerns the interpretation of Article 10 (1) of Regulation No 3, the Commission is of the opinion that it is not applicable in the present case because the article concerns solely pensions and death benefits, whereas the difficulty raised in the present case concerns entitlement to sickness benefits in cash.So far as may be relevant, the Commission considers that the purpose of the article in question is to provide protection against any adverse effects which may occur on a transfer of residence from one Member State to another. Hence, where national legislation makes the grant of benefits subject to a condition concerning residence, the fact that the claimant resides in the territory of another Member State cannot be a ground for altering, withdrawing or suspending any benefit.The Commission concludes its observations as follows:“The reply to the questions which have been put by the Court of Cassation depends solely in fact on the interpretation of Article 19 (2) and (6) of Regulation No 3. Those provisions guarantee continuance of the right to receive sickness benefits in cash for workers who are in the territory of a Member State other than the competent State provided that the conditions other than those concerning the presence of the claimant in the territory of the latter Member Sute are met and that he submits himself to the checks which are provided for in such a case.The fact that a claimant has extended his stay beyond the period authorized by the competent institution cannot affect the validity of a claim to have his incapacity for work confirmed or a complaint seeking to have a decision declaring him fit for work revoked.”
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.