Facts
[C.], an Italian national born in 1931, lived in Switzerland from 1960 to 1994, with her spouse. After the death of her husband, [C.] joined her daughter, son-in-law, and grandchildren in Switzerland in August 2000. The Foreigners' Office of the Canton of Neuchâtel issued her a residence permit, after her daughter and son-in-law each signed a declaration undertaking to fully cover all costs arising from C.'s stay so that it would not result in any burden on the public authorities.
[C.] is the recipient of an old-age pension of 1,391 CHF per month. On June 11, 2003, she submitted a request for supplementary benefits to the Old-Age and Survivors' Insurance to the Neuchâtel Cantonal Compensation Fund. The fund rejected the request, due to the commitment made by C.'s daughter and son-in-law to provide for her maintenance.
By judgment of February 7, 2006, the Administrative Court of the Canton of Neuchâtel upheld the appeal and remanded the case to the fund to examine the insured's financial situation and rule again.
The fund filed an administrative law appeal against this judgment, requesting its annulment.
Considerations
According to Art. 2(1) SBA, Swiss nationals who are domiciled and have their habitual residence in Switzerland and who meet one of the conditions set out in Arts. 2a to 2d must receive supplementary benefits if the recognized expenses exceed the determining income. Art. 2(2) SBA further provides that foreigners who are domiciled and have their habitual residence in Switzerland must receive supplementary benefits on the same terms as Swiss nationals, under certain conditions.
The respondent does not have Swiss nationality and does not meet the conditions set out in Art. 2(2)(a) to (c) SBA for the granting of supplementary benefits to foreign nationals. However, the Agreement of June 21, 1999 between the Swiss Confederation and the European Community and its Member States on the Free Movement of Persons (AFMP) is applicable in this case.
According to Art. 10a of Regulation No.…