CELEX: C2001/200/28
Language: en
Date: 2001-07-14 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 May 2001 in Case C-444/99: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 92/106/EEC — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

C 200/16                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          14.7.2001
     —      was resident in that State but was not carrying on an                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
            occupational activity and was receiving a pension there
            from another Member State in his capacity as a retired
            civil servant,                                                                              (First Chamber)
     —      while being subject in his State of residence to laws                                       of 10 May 2001
            relating to the branches of social security referred to in the
            Regulation.
                                                                             in Case C-444/99: Commission of the European Communi-
     However, Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 Octo-                                      ties v Italian Republic (1)
     ber 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the
     Community does not apply in principle to a person who has
     moved his place of residence from one Member State, in which            (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
     he had ceased to be in employment, to another Member State,             Directive 92/106/EEC — Failure to transpose within the
     in which he is not employed and is not seeking employment.                                        prescribed period)
2.   The expression ‘nor is any pension payable’ in Article 28a of                                      (2001/C 200/28)
     Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regu-
     lation No 2001/83, as amended by Regulation No 3096/95,
     must be interpreted as applying to a situation in which neither
     a pension based on residence, such as the State pension provided                             (Language of the case: Italian)
     for by Finnish law, nor a pension based on gainful employment
     and payable under the legislation of the Member State in which
     the person concerned is resident, is actually paid to that person,
     without its being necessary to ascertain whether he might               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
     hypothetically be entitled thereto.                                                         in the European Court Reports)
3.   The general principle resulting from Regulation No 1408/71,             In Case C-444/99: Commission of the European Communities
     as amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as                     (Agents: M. Wolfcarius and S. Dragone) v Italian Republic
     amended by Regulation No 3096/95, and applied by                        (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted by O. Fiumara) — application for a
     Article 33 of that Regulation, according to which a person              declaration that, by keeping in force a system of authorisations
     entitled to a pension cannot, by reason of his residence in the         and quotas for combined transport operations between Mem-
     territory of a Member State, be called upon to pay compulsory           ber States, despite having converted all special authorisations
     insurance contributions to cover benefits for which an institution      into general authorisations, the Italian Republic has failed to
     of another Member State has assumed responsibility, precludes           fulfil its obligations under Council Directive 92/106/EEC of
     the Member State in whose territory he resides from requiring           7 December 1992 on the establishment of common rules for
     him to pay contributions or similar payments prescribed by its          certain types of combined transport of goods between Member
     legislation to cover old-age, invalidity and unemployment               States (OJ 1992 L 368, p. 38), in particular Article 2 thereof
     benefits, where he is entitled to benefits having a similar             — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet,
     purpose, for which the institution of the Member State                  President of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón,
     competent in respect of pensions assumes responsibility.                Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
                                                                             has given a judgment on 10 May 2001, in which it:
4.   The fact that the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of
     Sweden have waived, under Article 36(3) of Regulation                   1.    Declares that, by keeping in force a system of authorisations
     No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation                              and quotas for combined transport operations between Member
     No 2001/83, as amended by Regulation No 3096/95, and                          States and despite having converted all special authorisations
     Article 23 of the Nordic Convention on Social Security of                     into general authorisations, the Italian Republic failed in its
     15 June 1992 (106/93), all reimbursement of the costs of                      obligations under Article 2 of Council Directive 92/106/EEC
     benefits in kind provided by an institution in one of the Member              of 7 December 1992 on the establishment of common rules for
     States on behalf of an institution of another Member State is                 certain types of combined transport of goods between Member
     of no consequence for the purposes of interpreting Articles 28a               States;
     and 33(2) of the said Regulation.
                                                                             2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.