Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:	2015 UKUT 488 AAC
Reported Number:
File Number:	CG 1697 2014
Appellant:	Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
Respondent:	FF (CA)
Judge/Commissioner:	Judge E. Jacobs
Date Of Decision:	03/09/2015
Date Added:	15/09/2015
Main Category:	Other current benefits
Main Subcategory:	carer's allowance/invalid care allowance
Secondary Category:	European Union law
Secondary Subcategory:	Council regulations 1408/71/EEC and (EC) 883/2004
Notes:	Court of Appeal decision reported as [2018]AACR 9 Carer’s allowance – co-ordination of social security systems across the European Union – interpretation of “a difference of views” for the purposes of Article 6(2) of Regulation 987/2009 [2009] OJ L284/1 In 2009 the claimant, an Italian national, came to live in the UK. He received a French state pension. In 2013 he claimed carer’s allowance which was refused by the Secretary of State on the basis that France was the competent State to pay such benefits. The claimant appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (F-tT) stating in his letter of appeal that the French social security office had advised him that it would not pay carer’s allowance for a disabled person living in the UK. The F-tT allowed the appeal holding that the UK was the competent State not France. The Secretary of State appealed against that decision and the Upper Tribunal (UT) held that Regulation 987/2009 [2009] OJ L284/1 (the implementing Regulation) provided a mechanism for resolving a case where two countries both denied responsibility for paying a claimant despite one being responsible for doing so. It set aside the F-tT decision, holding that the correct approach in such cases depended on whether there had been a difference of views under Article 6(2) of Regulation 987/2009. Article 6(2) said nothing about the form in which that difference must be expressed nor the nature of the evidence required to show it and it did not require a formal decision. The Secretary of State appealed against that decision and the issues before the Court of Appeal were, the interpretation of the phrase a difference of views for the purposes of Article 6(2) and the nature of the evidence necessary to establish such a difference of views. Held, dismissing the appeal, that: 1. the legislative background as a whole reflected the intention to provide a system for the provision of benefits which whilst not being harmonised are co-ordinated, user friendly and enabled people to access their rights as rapidly as possible (paragraph 38); 2. there was no need for a formal dispute in the sense of conflicting written decisions of the relevant institutions or Member States in order for a difference of views to arise. A difference of views will have arisen in a case in which there are conflicting formal decisions in Member States about the competency of those States to pay benefits to an individual or in circumstances which apply to that individual claimant. That did not mean that it was necessary for there to be a formal decision of a Member State in order for there to be a difference of views. It was merely a way of describing the situation when different views are taken, a difference of views persisted where there was an absence of agreement (paragraphs 39 to 41); 3. UT Judge Jacobs’ interpretation of Article 6(2) was correct, the only issue for the decision maker, the F-tT and the UT, was whether the evidence was sufficient to satisfy them that the two competing States hold different views on the issue of competence (paragraph 46).
Decision(s) to Download:	CG 1697 2014-00.doc [2018] AACR 9 ws.pdf