61996CC0185_EN
Opinion of the Advocate-General
Opinion of the Advocate-General
A - Introduction
1 The Commission has brought this action against the Hellenic Republic for failure to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty on account of a series of breaches of the principle of equal treatment enshrined in Community law, namely breaches arising from provisions of law, implementing regulations and discriminatory administrative practice. In substance, it concerns the recognition of non-Greek families as large for the purpose of the Greek legislation and the social security benefits linked to that status, which are normally reserved for Greek nationals.
2 The Commission claims that the Court should:
- declare that, by precluding, by regulation or administrative practice, on the grounds of their nationality, Community workers, whether employees or self-employed,
and the members of their families, from being attributed large-family status for the purpose of the award of the benefits provided for members of large families and from being awarded family allowances, the Hellenic Republic is in breach of its obligations under Community law, in particular Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty, Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68, (1) Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1251/70, (2) Article 7 of Directive 75/34/EEC, (3) and Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71; (4)
- order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
3 The Hellenic Republic contends that the Court should:
- dismiss the action;
- order the Commission to pay the costs.
B - Facts
4 The Commission became aware of the alleged inequalities of treatment as a result of complaints. The Commission was still receiving complaints while the written procedure was in progress before the Court. As long ago as 1992, before it formally initiated proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations under the Treaty, the Commission conducted an exchange of letters with the Permanent Representation of the Hellenic Republic. The Commission wrote to the Permanent Representation on 2 March 1992 (5) and 11 June 1992, (6) and the latter replied on 23 June 1992. (7) The Commission continued to regard the Greek legal situation as contrary to Community law and initiated proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations under the Treaty by letter of formal notice of 20 July 1993. (8)
The letter remained unanswered, with the result that, on 18 May 1995, (9) the Commission delivered a reasoned opinion, laying down a period of two months for compliance. By letter of 3 August 1995, (10) the Permanent Representation announced that the law was to be amended. The Commission expressed its views on that amendment on 13 October 1995. (11) By letter of 19 December 1995, (12) the Permanent Representation forwarded a proposal for a law. The Commission responded to that by letter of 24 April 1996. (13) The timing and extent of the proposed amendment of the law appeared unsatisfactory to the Commission, with the result that, on 2 May 1996, it brought an action which was received at the Court on 31 May 1996 and served on the Greek Government on 11 July 1996.
5 In the course of the procedure before the Court, the Greek Government made it known, by letter of 3 April 1997, that the amendment which it had announced had now taken place by means of Article 39 of Law No 2459/97. (14) While taking note of the amendment, the Commission nevertheless continued with its action.
6 The individual legislative provisions at issue are as follows: 1. Law 1910/1944
Article 1 lays down the substantive conditions governing entitlement to large-family status, while Article 2 sets out extensive and detailed procedural requirements for the recognition of that status. Articles 3 to 12 provide for a series of social advantages of varying current relevance.
2. Decree-Law 1153/1972
This decree provides both for family benefits payable monthly and for family benefits payable annually. Depending on the number of children, the benefits range in amount from GRD 500 to 1 000 per month or from GRD 2 000 to 2 500 per year; (15)
access to the benefits is dependent on the possession of Greek nationality or Greek origin.
3. Law 1892/1990
Article 63(1) and (2) of this Law of 31 July 1990 provide for a monthly benefit of GRD 34 000, payable for three years or until the child attains the age of three, for mothers who have given birth to a third child. Under paragraph 3 of the provision, a mother recognised as a parent of a large family within the meaning of Law 1910/1944 is granted a monthly allowance until her youngest unmarried child attains the age of 25.
Finally, paragraph 4 provides for a pension for life for the mother.
4. Ministerial Order No CIa/440 of 7/21 February 1991
This is an implementing order adopted pursuant to Law 1892/1990. Articles 2, 13 and 14 lay down certain conditions governing access to the benefits provided for in Article 63 of Law 1892/1990. In summary, all the benefits to be granted pursuant to this act are linked to the beneficiaries' possession of Greek nationality or Greek origin. For example, loss of Greek nationality results directly in the loss of entitlement to benefit. (16)
7 The Commission is of the view that all the benefits based on the abovementioned provisions are linked to Greek nationality, (17) which constitutes discrimination on grounds of nationality contrary to Community law. It claims that such unequal treatment is based either directly on the legislative provisions or, in any event, on discriminatory administrative practice such as, for example, in the application of Law 1910/1944. According to the Commission, the unequal treatment is in breach of the prohibition of discrimination under Community law in several of the forms which that prohibition takes in the Treaty and in secondary Community legislation.
8 The Commission bases its claim on Articles 7, (18) 48 and 52 of the Treaty and on Article 7 of Regulation No 1612/68, (19) Article 7 of Regulation No 1251/70, (20) Article 7 of Directive 75/34 (21) and Article 3 of Regulation No 1408/71. (22)
9 It maintains that the benefits have in common the fact that they are all allowances of a social nature, some of which are means-tested and others are not. Viewed from a purely abstract standpoint, some of the benefits may fall within the scope of both Regulation No 1408/71 and Regulation No 1612/68. It is the circumstances of each individual case which are the decisive factor. The Commission points out that the Court has held that a benefit may, purely hypothetically, fall within the scope of both regulations. (23)
10 According to the Commission, some of the benefits must be classified as family benefits or family allowances within the meaning of Regulation No 1408/71. (24) In assessing whether a benefit is covered by Regulation No 1612/68, Regulation No 1408/71, Regulation No 1251/70 or Directive 75/34, the decisive factor is the claimant's personal situation. Thus it is relevant whether he is employed or self-employed, whether he is in work or making use of his right to remain, and whether he is asserting his own or derivative rights. At the Court's request, the Commission produced a list of the legislative provisions in question and their potential scope.
11 In so far as the Greek Government pleads that some of the benefits are granted for demographic reasons, the Commission points out that, according to the Court's case-law, (25) demographic considerations cannot justify discrimination. Finally, the Commission notes that the submission of a draft law amending the legislative provisions objected to must, at least in part, be regarded as an admission of the need to amend the provisions in question. The employment legislation referred to by the Greek Government is not part of the subject-matter of the proceedings.
12 The Greek Government is of the opinion that the action is unfounded. In addition, it contends that for some of the objections there are no grounds. An inaccurate account has thus been given of the original cases.
13 According to the Greek Government, the legal situation of large families is governed by various provisions. The rights granted to such families are contained in several legal instruments. Even the definition of `large family' is not uniform. The multiplicity of legislative provisions to be taken into consideration explains why, up to now, full account has not been taken of Community citizens. Their recognition as persons entitled to benefits is under way.
14 According to the Greek Government, the benefits paid to members of large families have in common an historical and sociological basis. Protection of the family has constitutional rank. In view of the increasing percentage of old people in the Greek population, a number of the benefits are based on demographic reasons. Some of the provisions referred to by the Commission are outdated. Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 12 of Law 1910/1944 are now, for various reasons, nugatory or irrelevant to these proceedings. (26)
15 It contends that large-family status within the meaning of Law 1910/1944 is not the decisive criterion for the award of the benefits provided for by Decree-Law 1153/1972. (27) Moreover, Community citizens could also receive those benefits since Annex I to the Act of Accession contains a list, referred to in Article 21 of the Act, under title `IX. Social Policy' of which a letter `E.
Greece', containing a definition of workers entitled for the purposes of granting family allowances, (28) has been inserted in Annex V to Regulation No 1408/71.
16 According to the Greek Government, the benefits under Article 63 of Law 1892/1990 (29) are granted in pursuit of demographic objectives. They are in the nature of an award in recognition of the special contribution which a mother of a large family makes to society. In particular, the pension for life is granted `as an honour'. That pension in particular cannot be classified as falling under Regulation No 1408/71 or under Regulation No 1612/68. In so far as demographic reasons alone are not sufficient to justify the grant of benefits to persons of Greek origin, moral recognition of a contribution to society is a further factor which must be taken into account. In that respect, the Greek Government refers to the Court's judgments in the Even and de Vos cases. (30) Moreover, it points out that the legislation is being amended with regard to the other benefits referred to in Article 63 of Law 1892/1990. Greek employment legislation is in any case undergoing a review for the purpose of adapting it to the requirements of Community law.
17 The amendment of the Law (31) by Article 39 of Law No 2459/97, announced by the Greek Government by letter of 3 April 1997, has essentially the following content: Articles 1 and 2 of Law No 1910/1944 (definition and procedure for the recognition of a family as large) are expressly extended to apply to Community citizens. (32) The benefits described in Article 63(1) to (3) of Law 1892/1990 (family benefits payable monthly to the mother) are expressly made accessible to Community nationals, under the same conditions as apply to Greeks. (33)
C - Opinion
a - Admissibility
18 In view of the change in the law which has taken place in the course of the written procedure, the question arises, at least in part, as to whether there is a legal interest in bringing these proceedings.
19 By virtue of the fact that the Greek Government has enacted legal provisions which - on the assumption at least - have at least partially remedied the situation giving rise to the action, this case may not, in part, need to proceed to judgment. However, it is not usual, in Treaty infringement proceedings, for the Court to declare that there is no need for the case to proceed to judgment. That is due to the particular characteristics of such proceedings. On the one hand, it is common practice for the Commission, as the applicant in Treaty infringement proceedings, to bring the proceedings to an end by discontinuance of its action if the situation not in conformity with the Treaty has been remedied. The structure of Treaty infringement proceedings, with their obligatory pre-litigation procedure, is designed to allow an amicable settlement at any stage of the proceedings. (34) On the other hand, the Court has consistently held that a legal interest in bringing proceedings must be affirmed where the conduct objected to persists after expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion. (35)
20 It is undisputed that the legislative provisions objected to by the Commission were fully in force at the time of expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion. In principle, therefore, it can be assumed without further examination that there is a legal interest in bringing the proceedings.
b - Substance
21 The prohibition of discrimination under Community law, which is enshrined in the Treaty, is one of the cornerstones of the Community legal order. It is inherent in the fundamental freedoms.
Articles 6, 48(2) and 52 of the Treaty are therefore the correct starting point as regards freedom of movement for persons. The prohibition of inequality of treatment on grounds of nationality is given concrete expression in acts of secondary Community legislation and thus takes effect in the particular legislative context.
22 For example, Article 7(1) and (2) of Regulation No 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community provides as follows:
`(1) A worker who is a national of a Member State may not, in the territory of another Member State, be treated differently from national workers by reason of his nationality in respect of any conditions of employment and work, in particular as regards remuneration, dismissal, and should he become unemployed, reinstatement or re-employment;
(2) He shall enjoy the same social and tax advantages as national workers.'
Again for example, Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1408/71, on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, provides as follows:
`Subject to the special provisions of this Regulation, persons resident in the territory of one of the Member States to whom this Regulation applies shall be subject to the same obligations and enjoy the same benefits under the legislation of any Member State as the nationals of that State.'
In accordance with Article 7 of Regulation No 1251/70, on the right of workers to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that State, `[t]he right to equality of treatment, established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68, shall apply also to persons coming under the provisions of this Regulation.'
Finally, Article 7 of Directive 75/34, concerning the right of nationals of a Member State to remain in the territory of another Member State after having pursued therein an activity in a self-employed capacity, provides as follows:
`Member States shall apply to persons having the right to remain in their territory the right of equality of treatment recognised by the Council Directives on the abolition of restrictions on freedom of establishment pursuant to Title III of the General Programme which provides for such abolition.'
23 In summary, it can be concluded that the principle under Community law of equal treatment for employed persons and self-employed persons is applicable during their working life and beyond in so far as they exercise their right to remain. According to the scope ratione personae of the relevant provisions, the principle of equal treatment also applies to the members of the families of the persons concerned.
24 All the benefits provided for by the Greek legislation in question, which are the subject-matter of these proceedings, are benefits of a social character which either fall within the scope of Regulation No 1408/71 or are covered by Article 7 of Regulation No 1612/68. The scope ratione materiae of Regulation No 1408/71 is defined in Article 4 as follows:
`1. This Regulation shall apply to all legislation concerning the following branches of social security:
...
(h) family benefits
...'.
25 The Court has consistently held that a benefit may be regarded as a social security benefit `in so far as it is granted, without any individual and discretionary assessment of personal needs, to recipients on the basis of a legally defined position, and provided that it concerns one of the risks expressly listed in Article 4(1) of Regulation No 1408/71.' (36)
26 Article 1(u) contains a definition of family benefits and allowances. It states:
`(i) "family benefits" means all benefits in kind or in cash intended to meet family expenses under the legislation provided for in Article 4 (1) (h), excluding the special childbirth allowances mentioned in Annex II; (ii) "family allowances" means periodical cash benefits granted exclusively by reference to the number and, where appropriate, the age of members of the family.'
Annex II to the regulation does not list any childbirth or adoption allowances for Greece. It expressly states: `None'.
27 As the Commission rightly states, it is in fact necessary to examine the specific situation of the person entitled in order to determine conclusively which of the abovementioned Community legislative provisions should be applied. However, such an examination is not possible at the abstract level of Treaty infringement proceedings. Nevertheless, that does not, in principle, preclude a finding of a breach, contrary to Community law, of the principle of equal treatment since all the abovementioned legislative provisions are an expression of the prohibition, in Community law, of discrimination on grounds of nationality.
1. Law 1910/1944
28 There is no dispute that Articles 1 and 2 of Law 1910/1944 lay down the conditions and procedures for obtaining `large-family' status in the strict legal sense. Although those provisions do not make any explicit reference to Greek nationality, it must be assumed that it was consistent administrative practice for such recognition to be reserved for nationals of Greek origin. That is shown, first, by the complaints which prompted the Commission to act. Secondly, the Greek Government's defence also gives grounds for supposing that the recognition of a family as large within the meaning of the legislation in question was denied to Community nationals since the Greek Government relied initially only on the obsoleteness of the Law, although Law No 2459/97 did subsequently extend the application of Articles 1 and 2 of Law 1910/1944 to Community nationals.
29 Even if, as the Greek Government argues, Articles 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 and 12 of Law 1910/1944
are obsolete, Articles 7, 8, 10 and 11 are still of relevance, as the Commission also expressly pointed out during the oral procedure. They deal with social advantages, for the grant of which recognition as a large family, within the meaning of Articles 1 and 2, is an indispensable condition. Article 7 of the Law, for example, provides for costs incurred in legal proceedings to be reduced by half. Article 8 deals with certain tax reliefs and tax exemptions. As well as certain public service advantages, Article 10 concerns fare reductions for public transport. Article 11 deals with welfare payments intended to assist, for example, with the care of under-age or sick children or contribute towards the financing of daughters' dowries.
2. Decree-Law 1153/1972
30 This decree-law contains direct discrimination on grounds of nationality since it expressly requires beneficiaries to be of Greek nationality. It is true that the Greek Government takes the view that the Act of Accession gave Community nationals access to the benefits. However, the part of the Act of Accession it refers to contains only a definition of the workers entitled to claim family allowances for the purpose of applying Regulation No 1408/71. The rules for the grant of such benefits are not cited. Even if those rules operate implicitly within the scope of Regulation No 1408/71, that does not in any way alter the wording of Decree-Law No 1153/1972, which must then be regarded as unclear. The Court has consistently held that the alteration of an administrative practice is not sufficient to remedy a legal situation which is incompatible with the Treaty. (37) The provisions concerned must be unambiguously adapted to the requirements of Community law.
3. Law 1892/1990
31 The benefits provided for under Article 63(1) to (3) of this Law are family benefits within the meaning of Regulation No 1408/71, the receipt of which is expressly reserved for Greeks by Ministerial Order No CIa/440 of 7/21 February 1991. However, the Court has held (38) that demographic reasons, on which the Greek Government bases the grant of the benefits, cannot justify discrimination on grounds of nationality. Nor do the provisions in question represent a misleading interpretation of national law in the light of Community law, but are discriminatory rules enacted expressly after the accession to the European Community.
32 However, the same is also true of the pension granted under Article 63(4) of the Law. As `periodical cash benefits granted exclusively by reference to the number and, where appropriate, the age of members of the family', it must be regarded as a family allowance for the purpose of Regulation No 1408/71. A worker's spouse also is entitled, within the scope of Regulation No 1408/71, to rely on the principle of equal treatment under Article 3 of the Regulation. (39)
33 Even if one should have doubts with regard to the classification of the benefit according to the categories in Regulation No 1408/71, it must in any case be assumed that it constitutes a social advantage within the meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68. The Court has consistently defined such advantages as all advantages `which, whether or not linked to a contract of employment, are generally granted to national workers because of their objective status as workers or by virtue of the mere fact of their residence on the national territory, and whose extension to workers who are nationals of other Member States therefore seems likely to facilitate the mobility of such workers within the Community'. (40) Even if the mother of the large family did not have the status of worker herself, it would be sufficient if the father were to be regarded as a worker within the meaning of the provision since, under Article 10 of Regulation No 1612/68, the worker's spouse is also a beneficiary of the regulation. The provision of equal treatment in the field of social advantages, provided for in Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68, has been consistently upheld by the Court in favour of the members of workers' families. (41) It follows that the pension provided for by Article 63(4) of the Law must be granted to Community nationals who are mothers of several children under the same conditions as it is granted to Greek women.
34 It must be said, in response to the Greek Government's argument that the pension is granted `as an honour' in recognition of the merits of mothers of large families and must therefore be reserved for Greek women, that the contribution to society of mothers who are Community nationals is comparable to that of Greek women. It may be assumed that the parents and children of a large family who are established in Greece pay taxes and social security contributions to the Greek scheme. Social usefulness therefore extends far beyond a moral contribution. The judgments in the Even and de Vos cases, which concerned, respectively, an advantage in the drawing of the old-age pension to compensate for hardships suffered for the country in wartime (42) and partial compensation under social security legislation for the consequences of the obligation to perform military service, (43) are not applicable to the circumstances of this case. The latter are not comparable to the situation of a beneficiary who has made personal sacrifices for the country of which he is a national. In so far as the advantage under Article 63(4) of Law No 1892/1990 must be regarded as falling within the scope ratione materiae of Regulations Nos 1408/71 and 1612/68, that view is also confirmed by the Romero judgment (44) in which periods of training interrupted by compulsory military service, including in another Member State, were held to be reckonable periods for the purposes of granting orphan's benefit.
35 Finally, it is necessary to examine Article 39 of Law No 2459/97. The Commission is right in maintaining that this Law has only partially remedied the situation incompatible with the Treaty. The ambiguity in Decree-Law No 1153/1972 continues to exist. The benefits under Article 63 of Law 1892/1990 have been rendered only partly accessible to Community nationals. To compound matters, Law No 1892/1990 in conjunction with Ministerial Order No CIa/440 of 7/21 February 1991, was not enacted until well after the accession of the Hellenic Republic to the European Community. With regard to the benefits under Article 63(4) of Law No 1892/1990, the Greek Government persists in its view that discrimination can be justified on demographic grounds. Consequently, even taking into consideration Law No 2459/97, (45) the Hellenic Republic should be found to have failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty. However, that Law is not a decisive factor since the legal situation at the time of the expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion clearly constitutes a Treaty infringement. The form of order sought by the Commission should therefore be granted in full.
Costs
In accordance with the first paragraph of Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the unsuccessful party is to be ordered to pay the costs if they have been applied for in the unsuccessful party's pleadings. Since, according to the solution proposed above, the defendant would be the unsuccessful party, it should be ordered to pay the costs.
D - Conclusion
36 In the light of the foregoing I propose that the Court:
(1) declare that, by precluding, by regulation or administrative practice, on grounds of their nationality, Community workers, whether employees or self-employed, and the members of their families, from being attributed large-family status for the purpose of the award of the benefits provided for members of large families and from being awarded family supplements, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Community law, in particular Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty, Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1251/70, Article 7 of Directive 75/34/EEC and Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71;
(2) order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
(1) - Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475).
(2) - Regulation (EEC) No 1251/70 of the Commission of 29 June 1970 on the right of workers to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that State (OJ, English Special Edition 1970 (II), p. 402).
(3) - Directive 75/34/EEC of the Council of 17 December 1974 concerning the right of nationals of a Member State to remain in the territory of another Member State after having pursued therein an activity in a self-employed capacity (OJ 1975 L 14, p. 10).
(4) - Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (Consolidated version, OJ 1997 L 28, p. 4).
(5) - Reference No 3411, see Annex I to the application.
(6) - Reference No 9495, see Annex I to the application.
(7) - Reference No AM 3082/A/5458, see Annex II to the application.
(8) - Reference No SG (93) D/12255, see Annex IV to the application.
(9) - Reference No SG (95) D/6528 = E (95) 0578, see Annex V to the application; the letter bears the date of 18 May 1995 whereas the reasoned opinion is dated 22 May 1995. In the application itself, 14 June 1995 is stated as the date of dispatch of the reasoned opinion.
(10) - Reference No 3082.5/A/4348, see Annex A to the defence.
(11) - Reference No 1423, see Annex B to the defence.
(12) - Reference No 3082.5/A/6433, see Annex VI to the application.
(13) - Reference No 0685, see Annex VII to the application, corresponds to Annex A to the defence.
(14) - Published in Part A of Official Gazette No 17 of 18 February 1997.
(15) - See Articles 3, 4 and 7 of the Decree-Law.
(16) - See, for example, Article 13(2)(d) and Article 14(1)(c) of the Ministerial Order.
(17) - This refers to Greek nationality or origin. When the term 'nationality' is mentioned below, it should be construed in the broad sense.
(18) - Although in its application the Commission bases its view on Article 7 of the Treaty, the general principle of the prohibition of discrimination now appears in Article 6 by virtue of the Maastricht Treaty.
(19) - Cited in footnote 1.
(20) - Cited in footnote 2.
(21) - Cited in footnote 3.
(22) - Cited in footnote 4.
(23) - Judgment in Case C-111/91 Commission v Luxembourg [1993] ECR I-817, at paragraph 21.
(24) - Article 1(u).
(25) - Judgment in Case 65/81 Reina v Landeskreditbank Baden-Württemberg [1982] ECR 33, at paragraph 15.
(26) - See Article 5 of the Law, which provides for an exemption from military service.
(27) - See point 6(2) above.
(28) - See OJ 1979 L 291, p. 99, 101.
(29) - See point 6(3) above.
(30) - See judgments in Case 207/78 Even [1979] ECR 2019 and Case C-315/94 de Vos [1996] ECR I-1417.
(31) - Official Gazette No 17 of 18 February 1997, part A.
(32) - See Article 39(5) of Law No 2459/97.
(33) - See Article 39(6) of Law No 2459/97.
(34) - It is settled case-law that the purpose of the pre-litigation procedure is also to give the Member State concerned an opportunity to comply with its obligations under Community law. See the judgments in Case C-207/96 Commission v Italy [1997] ECR I-6869, at paragraph 17, and Case C-96/95 Commission v Germany [1997] ECR I-1653, at paragraph 22.
(35) - See the judgments in Case C-361/95 Commission v Spain [1997] ECR I-7351, at paragraphs 13 and 14, Case C-61/94 Commission v Germany [1996] ECR I-3989, at paragraph 42, and Case C-123/94 Commission v Greece [1995] ECR I-1457, at paragraph 7.
(36) - See the judgment in Case C-111/91 Commission v Luxembourg [1993] ECR I-817, at paragraph 29, with further references.
(37) - See judgments in Case C-197/96 Commission v France [1997] ECR I-1489, at paragraph 14, and Case C-334/94 Commission v France [1996] ECR I-1307, at paragraph 30.
(38) - See the judgment in the Reina case (cited in footnote 25).
(39) - Judgment of 30 April 1996 in Case C-308/93 Cabanis-Issarte [1996] ECR I-2097, at paragraph 44.
(40) - Judgment in Case C-57/96 Meints [1997] ECR I-6689, at paragraph 39.
(41) - Judgment in the Cabanis-Issarte case, at paragraph 38.
(42) - See the Even case, cited in footnote 30, at paragraph 23.
(43) - See the de Vos case, cited in footnote 30, at paragraph 21.
(44) - Judgment in Case C-131/96 Mora Romero [1997] ECR I-3659.
(45) - On the content of the law, see point 17 above.