2.

In order to understand the precise circumstances in which this request was made, it is necessary first of all to summarize the facts which gave rise to the proceedings. Léon Bodson, who is a Luxembourg national, after pursuing employment in the private sector in his native country, subsequently became an official of the European Parliament. Pursuant to the abovementioned provision he requested the Fund to transfer to the pension scheme of the Communities the actuarial equivalent of the retirement pension rights which he had acquired under the national insurance scheme. His request was refused by the Fund's Management Committee and he then brought an action before the Conseil Arbitral des Assurances Sociales [Arbitral Council of Social Insurance], which however dismissed the action on the ground that Luxembourg law did not provide for the pavment of the actuarial equivalent of pension rights acquired. Mr Bodson therefore appealed to the Conseil Superieur des Assurances Sociales [Supreme Council of Social Insurance], which by a judgment of 1 December 1977 held that he was entitled to the transfer of the actuarial equivalent. In that regard it should be emphasized that in its judgment the Conseil Supérieur interpreted Article 11 (2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations as conferring upon an official the right to elect to have paid to the Communities either the actuarial equivalent of the retirement pension rights acquired in his previous employment or the sums repaid to him at the date of leaving such employment. At that juncture it was for the Fund to calculate the amount to be transferred to the Communities on Mr Bodson's behalf in accordance with the abovementioned judgment. However, almost 20 months passed before such a decision was taken. In the meantime the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, in order to give effect within its own legal order to Article 11 (2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations, enacted the law of 14 March 1979 (which amended Article 18 of the law of 16 December 1963 on the coordination of pension schemes) conferring on Community and international officials the right to the transfer from the Luxembourg pension scheme of an amount equivalent to the sum of the contributions paid both by the insured person and by his employer, together with interest calculated at the rate of 4 % per annum. Pursuant to that provision the Fund's Management Committee, by a decision of 17 July 1979, finally determined the amount of the pension rights acquired by Mr Bodson to be transferred to the pension scheme of the Communities by adding to the total of the contributions paid to the Luxembourg insurance scheme, both by the insured person and by his employer, interest calculated at the rate of 4 % per annum from 31 December of each year of affiliation. In the statement of the reasons on which that decision was based it was asserted in particular that the concept of “actuarial equivalent of retirement pension rights” was unknown to Luxembourg law. Mr Bodson brought a further action before the Conseil Supérieur des Assurances Sociales, whose judgment had by this time become final. The Conseil Supérieur quashed the Fund's decision and once again remitted the matter to that institution in order that it might, in accordance with the abovementioned judgment of 1 December 1977, “calculate the actuarial equivalent of the retirement pension rights which Mr Bodson had acquired and whose transfer to the European Communities pursuant to Article 11 (2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities he had requested”. The Fund appealed against that second judgment of the Conseil Supérieur des Assurances Sociales to the Cour de Cassation [Court of Cassation]. Proceeding on the assumption that the Luxembourg legislation in force complied with the Community obligations, it maintained that the method of calculation provided for by that legislation and applied in its decision of 17 July 1979 could not be regarded as sums repaid (because the latter were defined by the Luxembourg legislation as including solely the contributions paid by the worker) and therefore necessarily represented the other alternative provided for by Article 11 (2), namely the actuarial equivalent. Consequently, the point at issue is in fact whether the Luxembourg transfer rules fall within the ambit of either of the solutions adopted by that provision. It was for that reason that the Cour de Cassation, in the question which it submitted to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling, referring in general terms to the characteristics of the transfer rules laid down by the Luxembourg law of 14 March 1979, wished to ascertain whether such a method could be regarded as a transfer of the sums repaid or of the actuarial equivalent of pension rights acquired at national level so as to give effect to either of the alternatives referred to in the relevant Community provision.