Mrs Gottardo, who is Italian by birth, renounced that nationality in favour
of French nationality following her marriage to a French national. She worked
as a teacher in Italy, Switzerland and France, and paid social security contributions
in each of those three countries (100, 252 and 429 weekly contributions
respectively). She is in receipt of Swiss and French old-age pensions.
Her wish to obtain an old-age pension in Italy, however, could not be realised
because - even if the Italian authorities were to take account of the periods
which she had completed in France - aggregation of the Italian and French periods
would not enable her to achieve the minimum period required under Italian law.
She would, however, be entitled to an Italian old-age pension if account were
also taken of her Swiss contributions in the overall calculation of her contributions
pursuant to the aggregation principle which underlies the 1962 Italo-Swiss convention
on social security.
The application made by Mrs Gottardo in 1996 in Italy was, however, rejected
by the INPS on the sole ground that, as a French national, the Italo-Swiss convention
did not apply to her.
Mrs Gottardo thereupon brought the matter before the Tribunale ordinario
di Roma, arguing that, since she is a national of a Member State, the INPS was
required to recognise her entitlement to a pension under the same conditions
as it applied to Italian nationals.
According to the Court, the case thus involves a difference in treatment
based on nationality. It further points out that, when giving effect to
commitments assumed under international agreements, Member States are required
to comply with their obligations under Community law.
Consequently, when a Member State concludes a bilateral international convention
on social security with a non-member country which provides that account is
to be taken of periods of insurance completed in that non-member country for
the purpose of acquiring entitlement toold-age benefits, the fundamental
principle of equal treatment requires that that Member State grant nationals
of other Member States that are not parties to that convention the same advantages
as those which its own nationals enjoy under that convention. The signatory
Member State may, however, provide objective justification for refusing to do
so.
The Court takes the view that a possible increase in financial charges and
administrative difficulties cannot justify a failure to comply with Treaty obligations.
|
Unofficial document for media use only; not binding on the Court of Justice. Available in all official Community languages For the full text of the judgment, please consult our Internet page For further information please contact Fionnuala Connolly: Tel: (00 352) 4303 3355; Fax: (00 352) 4303 2731 |