Case 09-14679

Mrs. X operated a dog breeding company, and was a beneficiary of the minimum insertion income (an income for those that make below a certain amount) since 1 October 2006. This qualified her to request the complementary health protection. She did not request the health protection as she was covered by her husband’s social regime. The Rural Code recognizes required contributions to the agricultural social mutual fund, with exceptions for inter alia beneficiaries of the complementary health protection.

The Limousin agricultural social mutual fund claimed the contributions provided to Mrs. X by the Rural Code for the years 2006 and 2007. In response, Mrs X filed an objection to the Tulle Tribunal of Social Security Affairs, which ruled in her favour. The Tulle Tribunal of Security Affairs declared largely founded the objection filed by Mrs X to the payment order from the Limousin agricultural social mutual fund. The Tribunal held that Mrs X owed the contributions for the period of 1 January to 30 September 2006, which is the period for which she was not yet a beneficiary of the minimum insertion income. The present judgment appeals this decision.

The Court reversed and annulled the Tulle Tribunal of Social Security Affairs decision, condemned Mrs. X to the costs, and referred the parties to the Limoges Tribunal of Social Security Affairs.

The Court held that the Tulle Tribunal of Social Security Affairs failed to inquire if Mrs. X did indeed benefit from the complementary health protection. The exemption of payment of the contributions to the agricultural social mutual fund is granted to a person who is a beneficiary of the complementary health protection and not the minimum insertion income.

“qu'en s'abstenant de rechercher si madame X... bénéficiait effectivement de l'avantage en cause, ce qui n'était pas le cas puisqu'elle reconnaissait dans ses conclusions que, bien que bénéficiaire du RMI, elle était restée sous le régime social de son mari et n'avait pas, de ce fait, demandé à bénéficier de la protection complémentaire de santé, le tribunal a privé sa décision de base légale au regard des articles L 731-23 et D 731-47 du Code rural.”

“that by failing to inquire if Mrs. X… indeed benefited from the relevant advantage, which wasn’t the case as she acknowledged in her conclusions that even if she was a beneficiary of the RMI she remained under her husband’s social regime and hence didn’t ask to benefit from the complementary health protection, the tribunal deprived its decision of a legal basis considering articles L 731-23 and D 731-47 of the Rural Code.”