Order — ECLI:EU:C:2006:394
Date: 2006-06-13
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Association Agreement;External relations;Social security for migrant workers;Free movement of workers;Anti-discrimination;Non-discrimination on grounds of nationality
Concepts: Effects. Scope and limits;The various agreements concluded by the Community
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: France

Summary of the Order 1. International agreements – Agreements concluded by the Community – Direct effect – Article 65(1), first subparagraph, of the Communities-Morocco Association Agreement (Communities-Morocco Association Agreement, Art. 65(1), first subparagraph, and Art. 67(1)) 2. International agreements – Agreements concluded by the Community – Communities-Morocco Association Agreement – Social security for migrant workers (Communities-Morocco Association Agreement, Art. 65(1), first subparagraph) 1. The first subparagraph of Article 65(1) of the Communities-Morocco Association Agreement, which provides for the prohibition of all discrimination based on nationality in the field of social security against Moroccan nationals as compared with the nationals of the host Member State, has direct effect, with the result that persons to whom that provision applies are entitled to rely on it in proceedings before the national courts. Failure on the part of the Association Council established under Article 67(1) of that agreement to take a decision is, in that regard, irrelevant. (see paras 39-42) 2. The first subparagraph of Article 65(1) of the Communities-Morocco Association Agreement, which provides for the prohibition of all discrimination based on nationality in the field of social security against Moroccan nationals as compared with the nationals of the host Member State, is to be interpreted as meaning that it precludes the host Member State from refusing to grant an armed services invalidity pension to a Moroccan national who has served in that State’s army and resides in its territory on the sole ground that the person concerned is of Moroccan nationality. The fact that the claimant had ceased working at the date on which his claim for an invalidity pension was made does not exclude him from the personal scope of that provision, since the concept of ‘worker’ in the provision encompasses both active workers and those who have left the labour market after reaching the age required for receipt of an old-age pension or after becoming the victims of one of the risks creating entitlement to allowances falling under other branches of social security. Furthermore, a person who carries out a period of compulsory or enlisted military service is to be considered to be a ‘worker’, within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 65(1) of the Association Agreement, in view of the relationship of subordination in the context of which he performs his military duties, in consideration for which he is paid. The fact that the illness on which the claim for an invalidity pension is based occurred in the past and took place outside of the territorial boundaries of the host Member State does not, furthermore, preclude the benefit at issue from falling within the material scope of the first subparagraph of Article 65(1) of the Association Agreement, since that period of employment was carried out in the service of the State itself, which was the applicant’s employer, so that, in this case, there was a close link between the applicant and the Member State concerned. Secondly, the illness which occurred during that period constitutes a situation which arose prior to the entry into force of the Association Agreement the future consequences of which, such as the possibility of receiving an armed services invalidity pension in respect of the sequelae of the illness, are however governed by that agreement, and in particular by Article 65(1) thereof, from the date of the agreement’s entry into force, as the application of the Association Agreement to such a pension claim cannot be considered as affecting a situation arising prior to that date. (see paras 44-48, 54, 66, operative part)