Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2002:182
Date: 2002-03-19
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Full Court
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Right of establishment;Social security for migrant workers;Free movement of workers
Concepts: Legislation applicable;General
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Belgium

summary of that case-law, see the Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer in Hervein I, cited in note 2, paragraphs 32 to 37. 37: - See similarly the Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer in Hervein I, cited in note 2, at paragraph 50. 38: - See Case C-168/98 Luxembourg v Parliament and Council, judgment of 7 November 2000, paragraph 23. 39: - See Case 41/84 Pinna [1986] ECR 1, paragraph 24 of the judgment; Case C-443/93 Vougioukas [1995] ECR I-4033, paragraph 30. 40: - Pinna, cited in note 39, paragraph 20 of the judgment; Case C-266/95 Merino García [1997] ECR I-3279, paragraph 27; Hervein I, cited in note 1, paragraph 16. 41: - Vougioukas, cited in note 39, paragraph 35 of the judgment; Case C-360/97 Nijhuis [1999] ECR I-1919, paragraph 30. See also, in the context of measures based on Article 57(2) of the EC Treaty, Luxembourg v Parliament and Council, cited in note 38, paragraph 32. 42: - Vougioukas, cited in note 39, paragraphs 32 to 35 of the judgment. 43: - Case 19/76 Triches [1976] ECR 1243, paragraph 18 of the judgment. 44: - Nor is there any explanation of that issue in any of the Regulations - cited above in notes 15, 16, 18 and 19 - which amended Annex VII. 45: - Third recital. 46: - Fifth recital. 47: - See also Case 300/84 Van Roosmalen [1986] ECR 3097, paragraph 20 of the judgment. 48: - The Tribunal de Travail de Tournai held in 1987 - citing the judgment of 27 October 1982 of the Cour de Travail de Mons in the case of Segard v Inasti - that Mr Hervein and Hervillier SA were not liable to pay Belgian social security contributions for the period from 1974 to 1 July 1982. Those judgments have helpfully been supplied to the Court of Justice by the defendants. 49: - That level being the full rate level described in paragraph 17. 50: - See paragraphs 26 to 28 and 36. 51: - See D. Pieters and P. Schoukens, Legal comparison of the social security protection of the self-employed in the Member States of the European Community, in P. Schoukens (Ed.) Social Protection of the Self-Employed in the European Union, 1994, p. 5, at pp. 8-11. 52: - See similarly with regard to Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) Joined Cases 62/81 and 63/81 SECO [1982] ECR 223, paragraph 92 of the judgment. 53: - See similarly the Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer in Hervein I, cited in note 2, at paragraph 50. 54: - Before amendment by Regulation No 3811/86, Article 9 of the Implementing Regulation provided: 1. Where the death occurs in the territory of a Member State, the right to a death grant acquired under the legislation of that Member State only shall be maintained, whilst the right acquired under the legislation of any other Member State shall lapse. ... The following paragraph was added to Article 9 by Regulation No 3811/86: 3. By way of derogation from paragraphs 1 and 2 in the instances referred to in Article 14c[1](b) of the Regulation, entitlement to death grants acquired under the legislation of each of the two Member States concerned referred to in Annex VII shall be retained. 55: - Before amendment by Regulation No 3811/86, Article 15(1) of the Implementing Regulation provided that to insurance periods completed under the legislation of one Member State shall be added insurance periods completed under the legislation of any other Member State ..., provided that such insurance periods do not overlap. ... At the end of Article 15(1)(a), the following sentence was added by Regulation No 3811/86: Nevertheless, in the cases referred to in Article 14c[1](b) of the Regulation, the abovementioned institutions shall likewise take account, for the award of benefits, of the periods of insurance or of residence completed under an obligatory insurance scheme under the legislation of the two Member States in question which overlap each other. 56: - Case C-31/92 [1993] ECR I-4543, paragraphs 17 to 23 of the judgment. 57: - See, in particular, Kemmler, cited in note 33, paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgment. 58: - See also R. Cornelissen, The Self-Employed and the Coordination of Social Security in Europe, in P. Schoukens (Ed.), Social Protection of the Self-Employed in the European Union, 1994, p. 43, at p. 51. 59: - Case 4/79 Providence agricole de la Champagne [1980] ECR 2823, paragraph 45 of the judgment; Case 112/83 Produits de maïs [1985] 719, paragraph 17; Pinna, cited in note 39, paragraph 26; Joined Cases C-38/90 and C-151/90 Lomas and Others [1992] ECR I-1781, paragraph 23. 60: - Produits de maïs, cited in note 59, paragraph 18 of the judgment; Pinna, cited in note 39, paragraph 29. 61: - See also the Opinion of Advocate General Darmon in Case C-228/92 Roquette Frères [1994] ECR I-1445 at paragraph 51. 62: - Joined Cases C-38/90 and C-151/90, cited in note 59, paragraph 29 of the judgment.