61974CJ0040_EN
Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
Parties
REFERENCE TO THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY BY THE BUNDESSOZIALGERICHT, FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THAT COURT BETWEEN
1 . THE KINGDOM OF BELGIUM
2 . HENRI COSTERS
3 . MARIE VOUNCKX
AND
BERUFSGENOSSENSCHAFT DER FEINMECHANIK UND ELEKTROTECHNIK
Subject of the case
ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 47 OF REGULATION NO 3 OF THE COUNCIL OF 25 . 9 . 1958 CONCERNING SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS ( OJ 1958, P . 561 ) AND OF ARTICLE 3 AND OF ANNEX 4 OF REGULATION NO 4 OF THE COUNCIL ON IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES AND SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS IN RESPECT OF REGULATION NO 3, OF 3 DECEMBER 1958 .
Grounds
1 BY ORDER OF 15 MAY 1974, LODGED AT THE REGISTRY ON 11 JUNE 1974, THE BUNDESSOZIALGERICHT HAS REFERRED TO THE COURT, UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY, A QUESTION FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 47 OF REGULATION NO 3 OF THE COUNCIL OF 25 SEPTEMBER 1958 CONCERNING SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS ( OJ 1958, P . 561 ).
2 IT APPEARS FROM THE REQUEST THAT THE QUESTION, REFERRED WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF AN APPEAL ON A POINT OF LAW BEFORE THE BUNDESSOZIALGERICHT, IS CONCERNED WITH THE ADMISSIBILITY OF AN APPEAL MADE TO THE LANDESSOZIALGERICHT OF NORTH RHINE-WESTPHALIA, BY ONE OF THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE NATIONAL PROCEEDINGS, AGAINST A JUDGMENT OF THE SOZIALGERICHT OF COLOGNE .
NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THIS JUDGMENT HAD BEEN SERVED UPON THE LAWYERS OF THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE NATIONAL PROCEEDINGS, WHOSE OFFICE IS AT COLOGNE, THAT AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT HAD BEEN ISSUED ON 1 AUGUST 1972 AND THAT THE JUDGMENT SERVED BORE A NOTE TO THE EFFECT THAT AN APPEAL COULD BE ENTERED WITHIN ONE MONTH WITH THE SOZIALGERICHT OF COLOGNE OR THE LANDESSOZIALGERICHT, THE PLAINTIFF IN THE NATIONAL PROCEEDINGS ENTERED A NOTICE OF APPEAL DATED 30 AUGUST 1972 WITH THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL SECURITY IN BRUSSELS IN ITS CAPACITY OF BELGIAN LIAISON DEPARTMENT .
HAVING RECEIVED THIS DOCUMENT ON 31 AUGUST 1972, THE LATTER PASSED IT ON TO THE BERGBAUBERUFSGENOSSENSCHAFT OF BOCHUM - THE GERMAN LIAISON DEPARTMENT - WHICH IN TURN TRANSMITTED IT TO THE LANDESSOZIALGERICHT OF NORTH RHINE-WESTPHALIA, WHERE IT WAS RECEIVED ON 7 SEPTEMBER 1972 .
3 WHEN THIS COURT REJECTED THE APPEAL AS BEING OUT OF TIME, THE PLAINTIFFS IN THE NATIONAL PROCEEDINGS APPEALED ON A POINT OF LAW TO THE BUNDESSOZIALGERICHT, BASING THEMSELVES ON THE ARGUMENT THAT THE KINGDOM OF BELGIUM AND THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY HAD ESTABLISHED LIAISON DEPARTMENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLEVIATING THE DIFFICULTIES IN CARRYING INTO EFFECT THE CONVENTIONS IN THE FIELD OF SOCIAL SECURITY .
THE BUNDESSOZIALGERICHT THEREUPON, BY THE REQUEST AT PRESENT BEFORE THE COURT, INVITED IT TO RULE ON THE QUESTION WHETHER ARTICLE 57 OF REGULATION NO 3 MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT THE " CORRESPONDING AGENCY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE " MAY ALSO MEAN THE LIAISON DEPARTMENT OF THE OTHER MEMBER STATE - IN THE PRESENT CASE THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL SECURITY IN BRUSSELS - TO WHICH " IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE LEGISLATION OF ONE MEMBER STATE " AN APPEAL WITHIN THE MEANING OF PARAGRAPHS 143 AND 151 OF THE " SOZIALGERICHTSGESETZ " MAY BE SUBMITTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRESERVING THE TIME LIMITS FOR APPEAL .
4 ARTICLE 47 OF REGULATION NO 3 READS AS FOLLOWS : " ANY CLAIM, DECLARATION OR APPEAL WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED, IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE LEGISLATION OF ONE MEMBER STATE, WITHIN A SPECIFIED PERIOD TO AN AUTHORITY, INSTITUTION OR OTHER AGENCY OF THAT STATE SHALL BE ADMISSIBLE IF IT IS SUBMITTED WITHIN THE SAME PERIOD TO AN AUTHORITY, INSTITUTION, OR OTHER CORRESPONDING AGENCY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE . IN SUCH CASE THE AUTHORITY, INSTITUTION, OR AGENCY RECEIVING THE CLAIM, DECLARATION OR APPEAL SHALL FORWARD IT WITHOUT DELAY TO THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, INSTITUTION OR AGENCY OF THE FORMER STATE, EITHER DIRECTLY OR THROUGH THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY OF THE MEMBER STATES CONCERNED . "
ARTICLE 83 OF REGULATION NO 4 OF THE COUNCIL OF 3 DECEMBER 1958 ON IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES AND SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS IN RESPECT OF REGULATION NO ( OJ 1958, P . 597 ) STATES THAT " THE DATE OF SUBMISSION OF CLAIMS, DECLARATIONS OR APPEALS TO AN AUTHORITY, INSTITUTION OR AGENCY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE DATE OF SUBMISSION THEREOF TO THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, INSTITUTION OR AGENCY . "
5 ARTICLE 47 OF REGULATION NO 3 HAS THE PURPOSE OF REDUCING THE DIFFICULTIES OF A LEGAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE KIND WHICH MIGHT ARISE IN APPLYING THIS REGULATION, HAVING REGARD TO THE POSSIBLE STATE OF UNCERTAINTY OF A WORKER RESIDING IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE AS REGARDS WHICH AUTHORITIES, INSTITUTIONS, OR OTHER AGENCIES TO ADDRESS IN ORDER TO ASSERT HIS RIGHTS .
SINCE SUCH PROVISIONS HAVE THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PARTIES INVOLVED AGAINST THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE DIVERSITY BOTH OF NATIONAL SYSTEMS OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND OF COMPETENCE WITHIN THESE SYSTEMS, THEY MUST BE INTERPRETED AND APPLIED ON THE BASIS OF TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE PARTICULAR DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED BY WORKERS RESIDING IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE AND POSSIBLY UNAWARE OF THESE RULES AS TO COMPETENCE .
6 HAVING REGARD TO THE DIFFERENCE IN SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEMS AND SYSTEMS FOR LEGAL PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES AS BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT MEMBER STATES, THE PROVISION OF ARTICLE 47 - WHICH ALLOWS THEM TO TURN TO AN AUTHORITY, INSTITUTION OR OTHER " CORRESPONDING AGENCY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE " - CANNOT BE INTERPRETED AS OBLIGING THEM TO OBSERVE DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN RESPECTIVE COMPETENCES .
IN FACT, IN SEVERAL MEMBER STATES, THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES IS NOT CLEAR-CUT AND MAY INDUCE A CERTAIN CONFUSION IN THE MINDS OF CITIZENS OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE .
ACCORDINGLY, IT MUST BE UNDERSTOOD THAT IN USING THE ADJECTIVE " CORRESPONDING " ARTICLE 47 REQUIRES THAT THE CLAIMS, DECLARATIONS OR APPEALS IN QUESTION BE SUBMITTED TO AN AUTHORITY, INSTITUTION OR OTHER AGENCY FORMING PART OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM OF THE MEMBER STATE IN QUESTION .
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE FOR A LIAISON DEPARTMENT SUCH AS IS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 3 OF REGULATION NO 4 TO BE CONSIDERED ANOTHER CORRESPONDING AGENCY, EVEN WHERE ONE IS DEALING WITH THE SUBMISSION OF AN APPEAL .
7 HOWEVER, ARTICLE 47 ONLY REFERS TO THE CASE WHERE THE WORKER LIVES IN A MEMBER STATE OTHER THAN THAT WHOSE LAW HAS TO BE APPLIED .
SUBJECT TO EXCEPTIONS, IT DOES NOT THEREFORE APPLY WHERE THE PARTY INVOLVED IS RESIDENT, OR IS FOR THE PURPOSES OF HIS CLAIM, DECLARATION OR APPEAL REPRESENTED BY A REPRESENTATIVE, ( E . G . A LAWYER ), ESTABLISHED IN THE MEMBER STATE WHOSE LAW MUST BE APPLIED .
IN CASE OF DOUBT IT IS A MATTER FOR THE NATIONAL COURT TO DECIDE WHETHER THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR APPLYING THE PROVISION ARE PRESENT .
Decision on costs
8 THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, WHICH HAS SUBMITTED OBSERVATIONS TO THE COURT, ARE NOT RECOVERABLE .
AS THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE, INSOFAR AS THE PARTIES TO THE MAIN ACTION ARE CONCERNED, A STEP IN THE ACTION BEFORE THE BUNDESSOZIALGERICHT, COSTS ARE A MATTER FOR THAT COURT .
Operative part
ON THOSE GROUNDS,
THE COURT
IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION REFERRED TO IT BY THE BUNDESSOZIALGERICHT BY ORDER OF THAT COURT DATED 15 MAY 1974, HEREBY RULES :
( A ) A LIAISON DEPARTMENT SUCH AS THAT REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 3 OF REGULATION NO 4 MAY BE CONSIDERED AS ANOTHER CORRESPONDING AGENCY WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 47 OF REGULATION NO 3, EVEN WHERE ONE IS DEALING WITH THE SUBMISSION OF AN APPEAL .
( B ) SUBJECT TO EXCEPTIONS, THIS ARTICLE CANNOT APPLY WHERE THE PARTY INVOLVED IS RESIDENT, OR IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIS CLAIM, DECLARATION OR APPEAL REPRESENTED BY A REPRESENTATIVE, E . G . A LAWYER, ESTABLISHED IN THE MEMBER STATE WHOSE LAW MUST BE APPLIED .