Federal Child Benefit Act (Bundeskindergeldgesetz). .. From 1 January , in addition to the maximum of € per child in cash benefit, recipients of. Original name: Neufassung des Bundeskindergeldgesetzes. Name: Publication of the revised form (consulted on ). Abstract/Citation: Citizens and. beziehungsweise sozialrechtlichem Kindergeld nach dem Bundeskindergeldgesetz sind daher in grenzüberschreitenden Fällen die einschlägigen.
|Published (Last):||24 May 2004|
|PDF File Size:||7.8 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||3.49 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Consequently, since the right to those benefits is precluded only because the parents of the handicapped child have taken advantage of an option provided for by Spanish national law, that court is inclined to take the view that receiving the Spanish non-contributory benefit for handicapped children prohibits interested persons from claiming the German dependent child benefit from the Member State which, not being the Member State of residence, is involved only in the alternative under those provisions.
That would also be true under Article 78 2 b i of that regulation. Plaza Cruz and S. Indeed, such an incompatibility under national law can be explained only by the Spanish legislature finding that those two benefits are similar, or at the very least, pursue the same objective.
The answer to the third question is that the answer to it bbundeskindergeldgesetz the same as that to the first two questions where, under the legislation of the Member State of residence, the interested persons are unable to opt for payment of family allowances in that State.
Skip to main content.
EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
EU case law Case law Digital reports Directory of case law. The determining factor in this respect is that the Spanish family benefits are payable even if the handicapped child may not, in such a case, receive the Spanish non-contributory benefit for handicapped persons. That would, for example, be the case if the handicapped child ceased to live together permanently with his parents in order to occupy a home of his own or to join a therapeutic community.
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website. Indeed, if that were not the case, the questions raised by that court concerning the interpretation of those provisions would be irrelevant. Centeno Huerta, acting as Agents. If an application for benefits is not made in the Member State in whose territory the members of the family are residing, the competent institution of the other Member State may apply the provisions of paragraph 1 as if benefits were granted in the first Member State.
Transposed to the case here, the application of that provision means that the competent German institutions could act as if the interested persons had chosen to receive the family allowances provided for by the Spanish legislation, thus excluding the right to family allowances provided for by the German legislation. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable. Benefits shall be granted in accordance with the following rules, irrespective of the Member State in whose territory the pensioner or the children are residing: Social security for migrant workers — Family allowances — Pensioners entitled under the legislation of several Member States — Benefits for dependent children of pensioners and for orphans — Handicapped children.
Indeed, those interested persons do not meet all the conditions of form and of substance to be granted those allowances. Where, during the same period, for the same family member and by reason of carrying on an occupation, family benefits are provided for by the legislation of the Member State in whose territory the members of the family are residing, entitlement to the family benefits due in accordance with the legislation of another Member State, if appropriate under Article 73 or 74, shall be suspended up to the amount provided for in the legislation of the first Member State.
Cunha Rodrigues, President of the Chamber, U.
EUR-Lex – CJ – EN – EUR-Lex
The fact that intentionally no application is made for the payment of family benefits ought not, therefore, to entail the transfer of the obligation to grant them from the Member State of priority in that respect to that which is competent only in the alternative.
Such a question of interpretation of a rule of EU law clearly falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court. Kreuschitz, acting as Agent. Benefits shall be granted in accordance with the following rules, irrespective of the Member State in whose territory the pensioner or the children are residing:.
Need more search options?
Expand all Collapse all. Second, it is also supported by the meaning and purpose of Article 76 2. Would you like to bunddeskindergeldgesetz them? Indeed, that benefit cannot be considered to be granted exclusively on the basis of the number, and, as the case may be, the age of members of the family, since supplementary or different criteria are also decisive, namely, the handicap and its degree or severity.
Indeed, in such a case, all possibility of choosing between the Spanish dependent child benefit and the Spanish non-contributory benefit for handicapped persons is excluded.
Judgment of the Court Second Chamber of 20 October For handicapped children incapable of supporting themselves, the BKGG provides that that allowance bundewkindergeldgesetz paid without any age limit if the handicap was established before the age of 25 years. Use the Advanced search. The amount of the allowance depends on the number of dependent children.
This also applies when, under the legislation of the Member State of residence, the interested persons are unable to opt for payment of family allowances in that State.
Furthermore, each of them is or was the father of a handicapped child of over the age of 18 years. The disputes in the main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling.
Arabadjiev, Judges, Advocate General: Indeed, that provision is intended not only to avoid the overlapping of benefits, but also to ensure an equitable sharing of burdens between Member States. On those grounds, the Court Second Chamber hereby rules: It is not disputed that that benefit constitutes a special non-contributory benefit.
That analogy is called for, first, based on the comparability of the interests at stake, since dependent children of pensioners should be treated in the same way as dependent children of workers. Help Print this page. Languages and formats available.