Judgment of the Court of 12 July 1973. - Anciens Etablissements D. Angenieux fils aîné et Caisse primaire centrale d'assurance maladie de la région parisienne v Willy Hakenberg. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Cour de cassation - France. - Social security of business representatives. - Case 13-73.



European Court reports 1973 Page 00935

Greek special edition Page 00649

Portuguese special edition Page 00353



Summary

Parties

Subject of the case

Grounds

Decision on costs

Operative part



Keywords

++++

1 . SOCIAL SECURITY - MIGRANT WORKERS - BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE - EMPLOYMENT IN THE TERRITORIES OF DIFFERENT MEMBER STATES - LEGISLATION APPLICABLE - CRITERIA - ONE LEGISLATION - PRINCIPAL EMPLOYMENT - DETERMINATION

( REGULATION NO 3 OF THE COUNCIL, ARTICLE 12 )

2 . SOCIAL SECURITY - MIGRANT WORKERS - BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE - EMPLOYMENT IN THE TERRITORIES OF DIFFERENT MEMBER STATES - LEGISLATION APPLICABLE - PERMANENT RESIDENCE - DEFINITION

( REGULATION NO 3 OF THE COUNCIL, ARTICLES 1 ( H ) AND 13 ( 1 ) ( C ))

Summary

1 . A BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE, COVERED BY REGULATION NO 3 BY VIRTUE OF NATIONAL SOCIAL SECURITY LEGISLATION, WHO FOR PART OF THE YEAR CONTINUOUSLY TOURS THE TERRITORY OF A MEMBER STATE CANVASSING BUSINESS AND WHOSE ACTIVITY EXTENDS INTO THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE IN WHICH ARE SITUATED THE REGISTERED OFFICES OF THE UNDERTAKINGS WHICH HE REPRESENTS AND WITH WHICH HE RETURNS TO MAKE CONTACT OUTSIDE THE TIME SPENT IN CANVASSING BUSINESS, MUST BE REGARDED AS BEING, PRIOR TO THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF REGULATION NO 24/64, EMPLOYED IN THE TERRITORIES OF THE SAID TWO STATES WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 12 OF REGULATION NO 3 . IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHICH SOCIAL SECURITY LEGISLATION IS TO BE APPLIED TO HIM, WHILE MAINTAINING OBSERVANCE OF THE PRINCIPLE OF THE APPLICATION OF ONE LEGISLATION, IT MUST BE HELD THAT HIS PRINCIPAL EMPLOYMENT WAS IN THE TERRITORY OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE REGISTERED OFFICES OF THE UNDERTAKINGS REPRESENTED BY HIM ARE SITUATED .

2 . A BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE, WHO REGULARLY TOURS THE TERRITORY OF A MEMBER STATE CANVASSING BUSINESS IN THE INTERESTS OF UNDERTAKINGS SITUATED IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE, HAS HIS PERMANENT RESIDENCE IN THE PLACE IN WHICH HE HAS ESTABLISHED THE PERMANENT CENTRE OF HIS INTERESTS AND TO WHICH HE RETURNS IN THE INTERVALS BETWEEN HIS TOURS .

Parties

IN CASE 13/73

REFERENCE TO THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY BY THE COUR DE CASSATION OF FRANCE FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THAT COURT BETWEEN

ANCIENS ETABLISSEMENTS D . ANGENIEUX FILS AINE, HAVING ITS SEAT AT ST . ETIENNE AND 15 OTHER COMPANIES AND ALSO

LA CAISSE PRIMAIRE CENTRALE D' ASSURANCE MALADIE DE LA REGION PARISIENNE HAVING ITS SEAT IN PARIS,

AND

WILLY HAKENBERG, LIVING IN PARIS,

Subject of the case

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLES 1, 12 AND 13 OF REGULATION NO 3 OF THE COUNCIL CONCERNING SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS,

Grounds

1 BY A JUDGMENT DATED 1 FEBRUARY 1973 ENTERED IN THE COURT REGISTRY ON 21 FEBRUARY, THE " CHAMBRE SOCIALE " OF THE COUR DE CASSATION OF FRANCE REFERRED, UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY, QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLES 1 ( H ), 12 AND 13 OF REGULATION NO 3 OF 25 SEPTEMBER 1958 CONCERNING SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS ( OJ P . 561 ) AS AMENDED, SO FAR AS THE LAST OF THESE PROVISIONS IS CONCERNED, BY REGULATION NO 24/64 OF 10 MARCH 1964 ( OJ P . 746/64 ), IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE SPECIAL SITUATION IN RELATION TO SOCIAL SECURITY LEGISLATION OF A BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE WHOSE WORKING ACTIVITIES EXTEND INTO THE TERRITORIES OF TWO MEMBER STATES .

2 IT APPEARS FROM THE JUDGMENT REFERRING THE QUESTIONS FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING THAT THOSE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THE CONTEXT OF A DISPUTE CONCERNING THE AFFILIATION TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM OF A FRENCH CITIZEN HAVING HIS PERMANENT ADDRESS IN FRANCE, ACTING IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY, AS A REPRESENTATIVE ON BEHALF OF VARIOUS FRENCH UNDERTAKINGS AND DIVIDING HIS TIME BETWEEN CONTINUOUS BUSINESS-CANVASSING TOURS IN THE LATTER STATE FOR NINE MONTHS IN THE YEAR, AND HAVING NO FIXED PLACE OF ABODE THERE, THE REMAINDER OF THE YEAR BEING USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONTACTING, ON FRENCH TERRITORY, THE UNDERTAKINGS WHICH HE REPRESENTS .

3 IT IS NOT CONTESTED IN THE NATIONAL COURT BEFORE WHICH THE DISPUTE WAS BROUGHT THAT THE PARTY CONCERNED, THE DEFENDANT IN THE MAIN ACTION, ALTHOUGH NOT IN A SUBORDINATE RELATIONSHIP TO THE UNDERTAKINGS WHICH HE REPRESENTS, MUST BE REGARDED AS " ASSIMILATED " TO WAGE-EARNERS WITHIN THE MEANING OF REGULATION NO . 3 BECAUSE HE PURSUES AN OCCUPATION WHICH, UNDER THE FRENCH SOCIAL SECURITY CODE, IS SUBJECT TO THE GENERAL SOCIAL SECURITY SCHEME .

4 THE MATTER OF THE AFFILIATION OF THE DEFENDANT IN THE MAIN ACTION TO THIS SCHEME IS ONLY IN DISPUTE OWING TO SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH HE DIVIDES THE PURSUIT OF HIS OCCUPATION BETWEEN THE TERRITORIES OF TWO MEMBER STATES .

5 IT APPEARS, MOREOVER, FROM THE ORDER REFERRING THE QUESTIONS THAT, FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF COMMUNITY LAW, THE PERIODS OF ACTIVITY TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE AFFILIATION OF THE DEFENDANT TO THE SCHEME ARE COVERED BY TWO SUCCESSIVE BODIES OF LEGAL RULES, SINCE THE PROVISIONS OF REGULATION NO 3 APPLYING TO THE SITUATION GIVING RISE TO THE DISPUTE WERE AMENDED IN 1964 BY REGULATION NO 24/64 .

6 SEPARATE CONSIDERATION SHOULD THEREFORE BE GIVEN TO THE FIRST AND SECOND QUESTIONS, WHICH DEAL WITH THE SITUATION PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT MADE BY REGULATION NO 24/64, AND TO THE THIRD QUESTION WHICH COMES UNDER THE NEW SYSTEM RESULTING FROM THE AMENDMENT EFFECTED BY THE SAID REGULATION .

AS TO THE FIRST AND SECOND QUESTIONS ( SYSTEM EXISTING BEFORE REGULATION NO 24/64 )

7 IN THE FIRST QUESTION AN INTERPRETATION IS SOUGHT OF THE TERM " EMPLOYED " IN ARTICLE 12 OF THE REGULATION NO 3 IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER

( A ) A BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE WHO FOR NINE MONTHS IN THE YEAR CONTINUOUSLY TOURS A MEMBER STATE CANVASSING BUSINESS BUT WHOSE ACTIVITIES EXTEND INTO THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE IN WHICH THE REGISTERED OFFICES OF THE UNDERTAKINGS WHO EMPLOY HIM AND WITH WHOM HE RETURNS TO MAKE CONTACT OUTSIDE THE TIME SPENT IN CANVASSING BUSINESS, MUST BE REGARDED AS PURSUING HIS ACTIVITIES IN THE TERRITORIES OF THE SAID TWO STATES, OR SOLELY IN THE TERRITORY OF THE STATE IN WHICH HE MAKES HIS TOURS, AND

( B ) TO HAVE A PRINCIPAL OCCUPATION IN THE TERRITORY OF A MEMBER STATE IS SUFFICIENT FOR THE PURPOSES OF ARTICLE 12 .

8 THE SECOND QUESTION SEEKS AN INTERPRETATION OF THE FORMER ARTICLE 13 ( A ) OF REGULATION NO 3 TO ENABLE THE NATIONAL COURT TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN EMPLOYMENT INVOLVING A REGULAR ALTERNATION OF MAKING TOURS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CANVASSING BUSINESS AND MAKING CONTACTS WITH THE UNDERTAKINGS REPRESENTED FULFILS THE CRITERIA OF THE SAID PROVISION AND MORE PARTICULARLY THAT OF " A DURATION OF EMPLOYMENT OF 12 MONTHS ".

9 ARTICLE 12 OF REGULATION NO 3 PROVIDES THAT " WAGE-EARNERS OR ASSIMILATED WORKERS EMPLOYED IN THE TERRITORY OF ONE MEMBER STATE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE LEGISLATION OF THAT STATE EVEN IF THEY PERMANENTLY RESIDE IN THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE OR IF THEIR EMPLOYER OR THE REGISTERED OFFICE OF THE UNDERTAKING WHICH EMPLOYS THEM IS SITUATED IN THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE ".

10 THE FORMER ARTICLE 13 OF THE SAME REGULATION MADE THREE EXCEPTIONS TO THIS PRINCIPLE AS REGARDS WORKERS ON TEMPORARY POSTINGS ( PARAGRAPH ( A )) WORKERS IN TRANSPORT SERVICES ( PARAGRAPH ( B )) AND WORKERS EMPLOYED IN UNDERTAKINGS WHICH LIE ASTRIDE THE COMMON FRONTIER OF TWO MEMBER STATES .

11 PARAGRAPH ( A ) OF THAT ARTICLE, IN PARTICULAR, PROVIDES THAT WAGE-EARNERS OR ASSIMILATED WORKERS WHOSE PERMANENT RESIDENCE IS IN THE TERRITORY OF ONE MEMBER STATE AND WHO ARE EMPLOYED IN THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE BY AN UNDERTAKING HAVING IN THE TERRITORY OF THE FORMER STATE AN ESTABLISHMENT TO WHICH THEY ARE NORMALLY ATTACHED, SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE LEGISLATION OF THE FORMER STATE AS THOUGH THEY WERE EMPLOYED IN ITS TERRITORY, IN SO FAR AS THE PROBABLE DURATION OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT IN THE TERRITORY OF THE LATTER STATE DOES NOT EXCEED 12 MONTHS; WHICH PERIOD COULD BE EXTENDED ONCE ONLY FOR A FURTHER PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS WITH THE CONSENT OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY OF THE LATTER STATE .

12 IT APPEARS FROM THE TERMS AND THE GENERAL SCHEME OF THIS PROVISION THAT ITS PURPOSE IS TO GOVERN THE SITUATION OF WAGE-EARNERS WHO ARE EMPLOYED ON A REGULAR BASIS BY AN UNDERTAKING SITUATED IN THE TERRITORY OF A MEMBER STATE AND ARE POSTED TEMPORARILY, BY THE UNDERTAKING TO WHICH THEY ARE ATTACHED, TO THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE .

13 THIS PROVISION CANNOT THEREFORE BE EXTENDED TO COVER THE ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT SITUATION OF BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVES WHO ARE NOT PAID A WAGE OR SALARY .

14 IN PARTICULAR, THE STRICT TIME LIMITS LAID DOWN BY FORMER PARAGRAPH ( A ) OF ARTICLE 13 ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH WORKING ACTIVITIES WHICH INVOLVE MAKING REGULAR BUSINESS-CANVASSING TOURS IN THE TERRITORY OF A MEMBER STATE, IN THE INTERESTS OF UNDERTAKINGS SITUATED IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE .

15 SINCE IT COULD NOT BE BROUGHT WITHIN ANY OF THE SITUATIONS REFERRED TO IN FORMER ARTICLE 13, THE OCCUPATION IN QUESTION WAS COVERED SOLELY BY THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY ARTICLE 12 OF REGULATION NO 3 BEFORE THE AMENDMENT MADE BY REGULATION NO 24/64 .

16 IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ANSWER TO THE SECOND QUESTION MUST BE THAT THE EMPLOYMENT IN QUESTION DOES NOT COME WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ARTICLE 13 ( A ) IN ITS FORMER VERSION, BUT WITHIN THAT OF ARTICLE 12 OF REGULATION NO 3 .

17 ARTICLE 12 ADOPTS AS A CRITERION OF ATTACHMENT FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE SOCIAL SECURITY LEGISLATION TO BE APPLIED, THE FACT THAT WAGE-EARNERS OR ASSIMILATED WORKERS ARE " EMPLOYED IN THE TERRITORY OF A MEMBER STATE ".

18 IT FOLLOWS BOTH FROM THIS ARTICLE AND AN APPROXIMATION TO THE EXCEPTIONS IN ARTICLE 13 THAT THIS PROVISION SEEKS TO ENSURE THAT ONE NATIONAL LEGISLATION IS APPLIED AND, WITH THIS IN VIEW, IT TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION A WORKER' S EMPLOYMENT, ASSUMING THAT SUCH EMPLOYMENT IS NORMALLY CONFINED TO THE TERRITORY OF ONE AND THE SAME MEMBER STATE .

19 IN ORDER TO SAFEGUARD, GIVEN THE STATE OF COMMUNITY LEGISLATION AT THE TIME IN QUESTION, THE PRINCIPLE THAT ONE LEGISLATION MUST APPLY TO AN EMPLOYMENT WHICH, ALTHOUGH OF A CONSISTENT AND CONTINUOUS NATURE, EXTEND OVER THE TERRITORIES OF SEVERAL MEMBER STATES AND COMES WITHIN THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 12, THE FEATURES OF THE ACTIVITY IN QUESTION MUST BE ANALYSED IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH WHETHER IT HAS A PREDOMINANT CONNECTION WITH THE TERRITORY OF ONE OR OTHER OF THE STATES CONCERNED .

20 FOR THIS PURPOSE NOT ONLY MUST THE DURATION OF PERIODS OF ACTIVITY BE CONSIDERED, BUT ALSO THE NATURE OF THE EMPLOYMENT IN QUESTION .

21 AS REGARDS THE KIND OF ACTIVITY DESCRIBED BY THE COUR DE CASSATION, THE PREDOMINANT CONNECTION IS TO BE SOUGHT IN THE WORKING RELATIONSHIPS BY WHICH A REPRESENTATIVE IS ATTACHED TO THE UNDERTAKINGS FOR WHOSE INTERESTS HE IS RESPONSIBLE AND NOT IN THE OCCASIONAL CONTACTS WHICH HE MAKES WITH SCATTERED CUSTOMERS .

22 THUS THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION MUST BE THAT A BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE PURSUING HIS WORKING ACTIVITIES IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED IN THE ORDER REFERRING THE QUESTIONS MUST BE REGARDED AS BEING EMPLOYED IN THE TERRITORIES OF THE TWO STATES CONCERNED, THE PREDOMINATING EMPLOYMENT, HOWEVER, FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE LEGISLATION TO BE APPLIED, BEING THAT ON THE TERRITORY OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE REGISTERED OFFICES OF THE UNDERTAKINGS WHICH HE REPRESENTS ARE SITUATED .

AS TO THE THIRD QUESTION ( SYSTEM EXISTING SUBSEQUENTLY TO REGULATION NO 24/64 )

23 THE THIRD QUESTION ASKS FOR A DEFINITION OF THE TERM " PERMANENT RESIDENCE " WHICH IS STATED AS MEANING " THE PLACE WHERE A PERSON HAS HIS HABITUAL RESIDENCE " IN ARTICLE 1 ( H ) OF REGULATION NO 3 AND THUS FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE QUESTION WHETHER THERE MUST BE REGARDED AS A PERMANENT RESIDENCE ANY HABITUAL RESIDENCE WITHIN THE FRONTIERS OF A MEMBER STATE EVEN WHEN SUCH HABITUAL RESIDENCE IS NOT IN A FIXED PLACE BUT CONSISTS OF BUSINESS-CANVASSING TOURS CARRIED OUT BY CARAVAN, OR WHETHER HABITUAL RESIDENCE IMPLIES SOME DEGREE OF PERMANENCE IN A GIVEN PLACE AND WHETHER THEREFORE A WORKER CAN BE PERMANENTLY RESIDENT ONLY IN THE MEMBER STATE WHERE HE RETURNS, IN THE INTERVALS BETWEEN HIS TOURS, TO A FIXED PERMANENT ADDRESS AND WHERE THE REGISTERED OFFICES OF THE UNDERTAKINGS WHICH EMPLOY HIM ARE ALSO SITUATED .

24 IT IS APPARENT FROM THE ORDER REFERRING THE QUESTIONS THAT THIS QUESTION IS RAISED BY REASON OF THE AMENDMENT MADE BY REGULATION NO 24/64 TO ARTICLE 13 OF REGULATION NO 3 FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISTINGUISHING AND DEFINING THE DEROGATIONS FROM THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 12 .

25 FOR THIS PURPOSE, IT MUST BE POINTED OUT IN PARTICULAR THAT REGULATION NO 24/64 INTRODUCED INTO ARTICLE 13 A NEW PROVISION - WHICH FORMS THE FIRST SECTION OF SUB-PARAGRAPH ( C ) OF PARAGRAPH ( 1 ) - UNDER WHICH WAGE-EARNERS OR ASSIMILATED WORKERS NORMALLY CARRYING ON THEIR ACTIVITIES IN THE TERRITORIES OF SEVERAL MEMBER STATES ARE SUBJECT TO THE LEGISLATION OF THAT STATE IN WHOSE TERRITORY THEY HAVE THEIR " PERMANENT RESIDENCE ".

26 THE TYPE OF ACTIVITY WHICH IS UNDER CONSIDERATION BY THE COUR DE CASSATION COMES WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THIS NEW PROVISION AND THEREFORE, SINCE REGULATION NO 24/64 CAME INTO FORCE, HAS BEEN SUBJECT TO THE GENERAL RULE LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 12 .

27 IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE THIRD QUESTION REFERS TO THE INTERPRETATION IN RELATION TO THE SPECIAL TYPE OF EMPLOYMENT IN ISSUE OF THE CONCEPT OF PERMANENT RESIDENCE IN ARTICLE 13 ( 1 ) ( C ) - FIRST SECTION - IN VIEW OF THE DEFINITION WHICH IT IS GIVEN IN ARTICLE 1 ( H ) OF REGULATION NO 3 .

28 WHEN A WORKER PURSUES HIS WORKING ACTIVITIES IN THE TERRITORIES OF SEVERAL MEMBER STATES, ARTICLE 13 ( 1 ) ( C ) ( FIRST SECTION ), IN ORDER TO AVOID THE SIMULTANEOUS APPLICATION OF SEVERAL LEGISLATIONS, GIVES PREFERENCE TO THE LEGISLATION OF THE STATE ON WHOSE TERRITORY THE WORKER CARRIES ON PART OF HIS ACTIVITIES AND WHERE HE HAS HIS PERMANENT RESIDENCE .

29 BY USING IN THIS WAY THE CRITERION OF PERMANENT RESIDENCE, TO ENABLE A CHOICE TO BE MADE BETWEEN DIFFERENT LEGISLATIONS ASCERTAINED BY REFERENCE TO PLACES OF EMPLOYMENT, ARTICLE 13 DEMONSTRATES THAT PERMANENT RESIDENCE IS TO BE DETERMINED BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT FACTORS OTHER THAN THOSE CONNECTED WITH WORK .

30 TO THIS CRITERION, THE DEFINITION IN ARTICLE 1 ( H ) ADDS THAT OF THE " HABITUAL " NATURE OF THE RESIDENCE, FROM WHICH IT IS APPARENT THAT IT IS SCARCELY APPROPRIATE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING PERMANENT RESIDENCE, ITINERANT ACTIVITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF CANVASSING BUSINESS WHICH ARE BY THEIR NATURE UNSTABLE .

31 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE POSSESSION OF A PERMANENT ADDRESS IN A MEMBER STATE IS, IN SUCH A CASE, TO BE REGARDED AS A STABILIZING FACTOR WHICH CAN DETERMINE PERMANENT RESIDENCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 13 ( 1 ) ( C ) ( FIRST SECTION ) AND THERE IS ALL THE MORE REASON FOR SO REGARDING IT WHEN THE PERMANENT ADDRESS IS IN THE TERRITORY OF THE MEMBER STATE OF WHICH THE BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE IS A NATIONAL AND IN WHICH HIS INTERESTS ARE CENTRED .

32 THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION MUST THEREFORE BE THAT BY " PERMANENT RESIDENCE ", IN THE SENSE IN WHICH THIS TERM IS USED IN ARTICLE 13 ( 1 ) ( C ) ( FIRST SECTION ) AND MORE EXTENSIVELY DEFINED IN ARTICLE 1 ( H ) OF REGULATION NO 3, THERE MUST BE UNDERSTOOD, IN THE CASE OF A BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE PURSUING THE KIND OF ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED IN THE ORDER OF REFERENCE OF A PRELIMINARY RULING, THE PLACE IN WHICH THAT WORKER HAS ESTABLISHED THE PERMANENT CENTRE OF HIS INTERESTS AND TO WHICH HE RETURNS IN THE INTERVALS BETWEEN HIS TOURS .

Decision on costs

33 THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC AND BY THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, WHICH HAVE SUBMITTED OBSERVATIONS TO THE COURT, ARE NOT RECOVERABLE .

34 AS THE PROCEEDINGS ARE, SO FAR AS THE PARTIES TO THE MAIN ACTION ARE CONCERNED IN THE NATURE OF A STEP IN THE ACTION BEFORE THE COUR DE CASSATION OF FRANCE IT IS FOR THAT COURT TO MAKE A DECISION AS TO COSTS .

Operative part

THE COURT

IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTIONS REFERRED TO IT BY THE " CHAMBRE SOCIALE " OF THE COUR DE CASSATION OF FRANCE BY ORDER OF THAT COURT DATED 1 FEBRUARY 1973 . HEREBY RULES :

1 . A BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE, COVERED BY REGULATION NO 3 CONCERNING SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS BY VIRTUE OF NATIONAL LEGISLATION, WHO FOR PART OF THE YEAR CONTINUOUSLY TOURS THE TERRITORY OF A MEMBER STATE CANVASSING BUSINESS, BUT WHOSE ACTIVITIES EXTEND INTO THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE IN WHICH ARE SITUATED THE REGISTERED OFFICES OF THE UNDERTAKINGS WHICH HE REPRESENTS AND WITH WHICH HE RETURNS TO MAKE CONTACT OUTSIDE THE TIME SPENT IN CANVASSING BUSINESS, MUST BE REGARDED AS BEING, PRIOR TO THE ENTRY INTO FORCE OF REGULATION NO 24/64 OF 10 MARCH 1964, EMPLOYED IN THE TERRITORIES OF THE SAID TWO STATES WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 12 OF REGULATION NO 3 .

AT THAT TIME, IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHICH SOCIAL SECURITY LEGISLATION IS TO BE APPLIED, THE PRINCIPAL EMPLOYMENT WAS TO BE REGARDED AS THE ONE ON THE TERRITORY OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE REGISTERED OFFICES OF THE UNDERTAKINGS CONCERNED WERE SITUATED .

2 . THE WORKING ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED ABOVE DO NOT COME WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ARTICLE 13 ( A ) OF REGULATION NO 3 AS WORDED PRIOR TO REGULATION NO 24/64 OF 10 MARCH 1964 .

3 . BY " PERMANENT RESIDENCE ", IN THE SENSE IN WHICH THAT TERM IS USED IN ARTICLE 13 ( 1 ) ( C ) ( FIRST SECTION ) OF REGULATION NO 3, AS AMENDED BY REGULATION NO 24/64, AND DEFINED BY ARTICLE 1 ( H ) OF THE SAME REGULATION, THERE MUST BE UNDERSTOOD, IN THE CASE OF A BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE PURSUING THE KIND OF WORKING ACTIVITIES ABOVE DESCRIBED, THE PLACE IN WHICH HE HAS ESTABLISHED THE PERMANENT CENTRE OF HIS INTERESTS AND TO WHICH HE RETURNS IN THE INTERVALS BETWEEN HIS TOURS .