Biagio Valentini v ASSEDIC de Lyon (171/82)

3. Observations of the Italian Government

The Italian Government, on the other hand, suggests that the question be answered in the affirmative on the ground that Regulation No 1408/71 should be interpreted in a manner favourable to the migrant worker, as the Court had laid down in its previous decisions. Moreover the Court has established the definite principle that strict limits must be imposed on the conditions in which measures against overlapping are permissible and has interpreted the provisions of Regulation No 1408/71 to the effect that, and to the extent to which, they implement the objectives laid down in the Treaty, in particular those referred to in Article 51 (a) and (b). It has decided, in particular, that if the application of national legislation proves to be less favourable than that of the scheme of aggregation and apportionment provided for in Article 46 (1) of Regulation No 1408/71, the latter scheme must be applied (judgment of 14 March 1978, Case 98/77 Schaap [1978] ECR 707). The conditions in which it is permissible to reduce social security benefits determined in pursuance of Article 46 (1) and (2) are defined in Article 46 (3). The Court has limited the application of that provision exclusively to cases in which it appears necessary to have recourse to the arrangement for aggregation of periods of insurance for the purpose of acquiring the right to social security benefits. In any other circumstances, the reduction on grounds of overlapping provided for in that measure is not compatible with Article 51 of the Treaty. Thus measures effecting reductions are not permissible in pursuance either of Article 46 (2) or of Article 12 (2) of Regulation No 1408/71. The Court should therefore reply to the question in the affirmative.