EXCLUDING ANY INITIATIVE OF THE PARTIES, WHO ARE MERELY INVITED TO BE HEARD IN THE COURSE OF THAT PROCEDURE . THE CLAIM OF MAISON SINGER ET FILS TO HAVE THE COLMAR COURT'S REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING DECLARED TO BE WITHOUT PURPOSE MUST THEREFORE BE REJECTED .
MOREOVER, THE ARGUMENT OF THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MAIN ACTION THAT REGULATION NO 3 AND IN PARTICULAR ARTICLE 52 THEREOF ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE LIMITATIONS PRESCRIBED BY ARTICLE 51 OF THE TREATY CANNOT BE ACCEPTED .
UNDER ARTICLE 51 OF THE TREATY, THE COUNCIL ' SHALL ... ADOPT SUCH MEASURES IN THE FIELD OF SOCIAL SECURITY AS ARE NECESSARY TO PROVIDE FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR WORKERS '. ARTICLE 51 IS INCLUDED IN THE CHAPTER ENTITLED ' WORKERS ' AND SITUATED IN TITLE III (' FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS, SERVICES AND CAPITAL ') IN PART TWO OF THE TREATY (' FOUNDATIONS OF THE COMMUNITY '). THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AS COMPLETE FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR WORKERS AS POSSIBLE, WHICH THUS FORMS PART OF THE ' FOUNDATIONS ' OF THE COMMUNITY, THEREFORE CONSTITUTES THE ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE OF ARTICLE 51 AND THEREBY CONDITIONS THE EXERCISE OF THE POWER WHICH IT CONFERS UPON THE COUNCIL .
IT WOULD NOT BE IN CONFORMITY WITH THAT SPIRIT TO LIMIT THE CONCEPT OF ' WORKER ' SOLELY TO MIGRANT WORKERS STRICTO SENSU OR SOLELY TO WORKERS REQUIRED TO MOVE FOR THE PURPOSE OF THEIR EMPLOYMENT . NOTHING IN ARTICLE 51 IMPOSES SUCH DISTINCTIONS, WHICH WOULD IN ANY CASE TEND TO MAKE THE APPLICATION OF THE RULES IN QUESTION IMPRACTICABLE .
ON THE OTHER HAND, THE SYSTEM ADOPTED BY REGULATION NO 3, WHICH CONSISTS IN ABOLISHING AS FAR AS POSSIBLE THE TERRITORIAL LIMITATIONS ON THE APPLICATION OF THE DIFFERENT SOCIAL SECURITY SCHEMES, CERTAINLY CORRESPONDS TO THE OBJECTIVES OF ARTICLE 51 OF THE TREATY .
II - ON THE SECOND QUESTION
IN ITS SECOND QUESTION, THE COUR D' APPEL, COLMAR, ASKS THE COURT TO RULE WHETHER, UNDER ARTICLE 52 OF REGULATION NO 3, THE SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTIONS OF A MEMBER STATE ARE ENTITLED TO BRING AN ACTION, ON THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN THEREIN, FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF BENEFITS GRANTED IN CONSEQUENCE OF AN ACCIDENT OCCURRING BEFORE 1 JANUARY 1959 . UNDER ARTICLE 88(1 ) OF REGULATION NO 4 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE EEC, REGULATION NO 3 ENTERED INTO FORCE ON 1 JANUARY 1959 . THE SAID REGULATION NO 3 WAS INCAPABLE OF GIVING RISE, BEFORE 1 JANUARY 1959, TO THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES REFERRED TO THEREIN . BUT EVENTS OCCURRING BEFORE THAT DATE MAY, ONCE THE REGULATION HAS ENTERED INTO FORCE, GIVE RISE TO THOSE RIGHTS AND DUTIES . IN THE ABSENCE OF AN EXPRESS PROVISION TO THE CONTRARY, ITS RULES MUST BE REGARDED AS TAKING EFFECT AS SOON AS THEY ENTER INTO FORCE, INASMUCH AS THEY DETERMINE IN THE PRESENT LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF ACTIONS IN THE PAST . ARTICLE 52 OF REGULATION NO 3 IN NO WAY MODIFIES THE CONDITIONS GOVERNING THE CREATION AND THE LIMITS OF EXTRA-CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY, WHICH REMAINS