Toosey v. Chief Adjudication Officer

Factual and Procedural Background

The case concerns a preliminary ruling requested by a social security Commissioner from the United Kingdom regarding the interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1408/71 on social security schemes for persons moving within the Community. The dispute arose between the Appellant, a British national, and the Chief Adjudication Officer over the Appellant's entitlement to invalidity benefit.

The Appellant worked in the United Kingdom from 1964 to 1965, then moved to Belgium in 1973 due to her spouse's work, where she was employed from 1974 to 1982. She ceased working in 1982 due to a disabling condition and subsequently lived in France from 1983 to 1985 before returning to the United Kingdom. The Appellant applied for severe disablement allowance ("SDA") in the United Kingdom in 1986, but the claim was rejected on residence grounds.

The Appellant contended entitlement to SDA under Regulation No. 1408/71, arguing that she qualified as a wholly unemployed worker returning to her Member State of residence and thus should receive benefits from that State. The social security Commissioner referred several questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling concerning the interpretation and application of Articles 39, 71, and related provisions of the Regulation.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the first sentence of Article 71(1)(b)(ii) of Regulation No. 1408/71 applies to a worker who resides and works in one Member State, subsequently moves and works in another Member State where incapacity and invalidity occur, then moves to a third Member State where they reside but do not work, and finally returns to the first Member State without working due to invalidity.
2. If Article 71(1)(b)(ii) applies, how a national court should determine whether a claim for invalidity benefit should be directed to the institution of the last State of employment or the State of residence under Articles 39(1) and 39(5).
3. Whether conditions of entitlement to non-contributory benefits based on presence or residence are included within the phrase "in accordance with the legislation which it administers" in Article 39(5).
4. Whether the competent institution must treat periods of residence in other Member States as periods of residence in that State for entitlement purposes.
5. If Article 71(1)(b)(ii) does not apply, whether the competent institution must treat residence periods in other Member States as residence periods in its own State for entitlement purposes.
6. The obligations of the institution of the State of residence in forwarding claims and paying benefits when invalidity benefit is due from the State of last employment.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant argued that she falls within the scope of Article 71(1)(b)(ii) as a wholly unemployed worker returning to her Member State of residence.
• She claimed entitlement to receive severe disablement allowance under the legislation of the United Kingdom, the State of residence.
• She contended that she was not a frontier worker and thus Article 71(1)(b)(ii) should apply to her situation.

Respondent's Arguments (United Kingdom)

• This information was not available in the provided opinion.

Commission of the European Communities' Position

• This information was not available in the provided opinion.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Di Paolo v. Office National de l'Emploi [1977] ECR 315	Residence in a Member State other than that of last employment determines applicability of Article 71.	Confirmed that Article 71 applies only if the person resides in a different Member State from that of last employment.
Caisse Primaire d'Assurance Maladie de Rouen v. Guyot [1984] ECR 3507	Clarified the residence criterion under Regulation No. 1408/71.	Supported the interpretation that residence outside the State of last employment is necessary for Article 71 to apply.
Bergemann v. Bundesanstalt für Arbeit [1988] ECR 5125	Residence as a determining factor for the application of social security provisions.	Reinforced that Article 71 is inapplicable if the person resides in the State of last employment when invalidity occurs.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began by affirming the principle under Article 13(1) of Regulation No. 1408/71 that a person is subject to the social security legislation of a single Member State, typically the State of employment. Article 39(1) designates the competent State for invalidity benefits as that whose legislation applied when incapacity and invalidity occurred.

Article 39(5) provides an exception for wholly unemployed workers covered by Article 71(1)(a)(ii) and the first sentence of Article 71(1)(b)(ii), which grants competence to the State of residence. The Court emphasized that Article 71 applies only if the person resides in a Member State different from that of last employment.

Applying these principles to the facts, the Court found that the Appellant was resident in the State of last employment (Belgium) when incapacity and invalidity arose, so Article 71(1)(b)(ii) does not apply. The Court rejected the Appellant's contention that this interpretation deprived Article 71 of meaning for non-frontier workers, noting that it covers workers residing in their habitual residence State while employed in another Member State.

Consequently, the Court answered the first question negatively and declined to answer the second, third, and fourth questions, which depended on an affirmative answer.

Regarding the fifth question, the Court held it unnecessary to answer because the competent State for invalidity benefits is that whose legislation applied at the time of incapacity (Belgium).

On the sixth question, the Court explained that under Article 86 of Regulation No. 1408/71 and Article 35 of Regulation No. 574/72, the institution of the State of residence must forward any invalidity benefit claim to the competent institution of the State of last employment. However, unlike other benefits, the institution of the State of residence is not required to pay the benefit to the claimant, although it may assist in claim submission.

Holding and Implications

The Court held that:

• The first sentence of Article 71(1)(b)(ii) of Regulation No. 1408/71 does not apply to a worker who resides and works in one Member State, moves with family to another Member State where incapacity and invalidity occur, then resides in a third Member State without working due to invalidity, and finally returns to the first Member State without working.
• Under Article 86 of Regulation No. 1408/71 and Article 35 of Regulation No. 574/72, the institution of the State of residence must forward claims for invalidity benefit to the competent institution of the State of last employment but is not required to pay such benefits to the claimant.

The direct effect of this decision is that the claimant's entitlement to invalidity benefit rests with the State whose legislation applied at the time of incapacity, and the State of residence's institution acts only as a forwarding agent for claims, not as a payer. The opinion does not establish new precedent beyond clarifying the application of Article 71 in these circumstances.