TONGEREN REFERRED TO THE COURT FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY A QUESTION ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 69 OF 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 FAMILY MOVING WITHIN THE COMMUNITY, AS CONSOLIDATED BY COUNCIL REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 2001/83 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL L 230 OF 2 JUNE 1983, P . 6 ).
THE QUESTION WAS RAISED IN PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN MRS VANHAEREN AND THE RIJKSDIENST VOOR ARBEIDSVOORZIENING ( HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS "THE EMPLOYMENT OFFICE ") FOLLOWING THE REFUSAL BY THE EMPLOYMENT OFFICE TO GRANT HER UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT IN BELGIUM .
MRS VANHAEREN WAS UNEMPLOYED IN BELGIUM WHERE SHE RECEIVED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS UNTIL 27 JULY 1983 . ON THAT DATE SHE SETTLED IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY WHERE SHE RECEIVED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 69 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 1408/71, THAT IS TO SAY FOR A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS FOLLOWING HER MOVE FROM BELGIUM .
FOR A TIME MRS VANHAEREN WAS EMPLOYED IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY AND LATER RETURNED TO BELGIUM ON 13 MAY 1986 WHERE SHE APPLIED ONCE AGAIN FOR UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT .
THE EMPLOYMENT OFFICE REFUSED TO GRANT HER BENEFIT ON THE BASIS OF ARTICLE 69 ( 4 ) OF REGULATION NO 1408/71, WHICH PROVIDES THAT : "WHERE THE COMPETENT STATE IS BELGIUM, AN UNEMPLOYED PERSON WHO RETURNS THERE AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE THREE-MONTH PERIOD LAID DOWN IN PARAGRAPH 1 ( C ), SHALL NOT REQUALIFY FOR BENEFITS IN THAT COUNTRY UNTIL HE HAS BEEN EMPLOYED THERE FOR AT LEAST THREE MONTHS ".
MRS VANHAEREN APPEALED TO THE ARBEIDSRECHTBANK, TONGEREN, WHICH DECIDED TO REFER TO THE COURT FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING "THE QUESTION WHETHER ARTICLE 69 IS APPLICABLE" IN A SITUATION SUCH AS THAT DESCRIBED ABOVE .
REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE REPORT FOR THE HEARING FOR A FULLER ACCOUNT OF THE FACTS OF THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS, THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF COMMUNITY LAW AND THE OBSERVATIONS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT, WHICH ARE MENTIONED OR DISCUSSED HEREINAFTER ONLY IN SO FAR AS IS NECESSARY FOR THE REASONING OF THE COURT .
IT IS APPARENT FROM THE FACTS OF THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS THAT THE NATIONAL COURT' S QUESTION IS IN ESSENCE WHETHER, IN A MEMBER STATE WHERE AN UNEMPLOYED PERSON' S RIGHT TO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED, PARAGRAPHS ( 2 ) AND ( 4 ) OF ARTICLE 69 OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 REMAIN APPLICABLE TO THAT UNEMPLOYED PERSON WHEN HE RETURNS TO THAT STATE AFTER HAVING BEEN EMPLOYED IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE .
BOTH THE HEADING OF SECTION 2 OF CHAPTER 6 OF TITLE III OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 AND THE WORDING OF ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) AND ( 4 ) INDICATE THAT THOSE PROVISIONS ARE DEFINING THE RIGHTS OF A MIGRANT WORKER WHO RETURNS TO THE COMPETENT STATE AFTER SEEKING WORK IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE . THE REPLY TO