Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2000:29
Date: 2000-02-03
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Single Judge
Based on: Merger Treaty (1965)
Subject matter: Staff regulations and employment conditions - EC
Concepts: Plea of illegality;Measures in respect of which a plea of illegality may be raised;Sickness insurance
Procedure: Staff cases - unfounded;Staff cases - inadmissible

SUMMARY — CASE T-60/99 
Summary 
1. Officials Social security Sickness insurance Spouse who was gainfully employed 
Conditions of cover by the common scheme 
(Staff Regulations, Art. 72(1); Rules on sickness insurance, Art. 3(1)) 
2. Objection of illegality Scope Measures which may be claimed to be illegal 
(EC Treaty, Art. 184 (now Art. 241 EC)) 
1. Neither Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations nor Article 3(1) of the Rules on 
sickness insurance for officials makes admission of a member's spouse to the 
common scheme conditional on sickness cover being available under other 
provisions laid down by law or regulation solely by virtue of that person's being 
gainfully employed. Therefore, the argument that it is the fact that an official's 
spouse is gainfully employed that either places the spouse under an obligation to be 
insured against sickness or gives entitlement to voluntary sickness insurance cannot 
be accepted. 
Consequently, an official's spouse whose annual income from former employment 
does not exceed the threshold laid down in the second indent of Article 3(1) of the 
insurance rules and who is entitled to join a sickness insurance scheme of a Member 
State solely by virtue of residence in that State can benefit from the common 
sickness insurance scheme only on a supplementary basis. 
(see para. 43) 
I-A - 12 
TOWNSEND v COMMISSION 
2. The scope of an objection of illegality must be limited to what is necessary for 
determination of the dispute. Article 184 of the Treaty (now Article 241 EC) is not 
intended to enable a party to contest the applicability of any measure of general 
application in support of any action whatsoever. The general measure claimed to 
be illegal must be applicable, directly or indirectly, to the issue with which the 
action is concerned and there must be a direct legal connection between the 
contested individual decision and the general measure in question. 
(see para. 53) 
See: 21/64 Macchiorlati Dalmas e Figli v High Authority [1965] ECR 175, at pp. 187-8; 
32/65 Italy v Council and Commission [1966] ECR 389, at pp. 409, 410; T-6/92 and 
T-52/92 Reinarz v Commission [1993] ECR II-1047, para. 57 
I-A - 13