CELEX: C1999/100/21
Language: en
Date: 1999-04-10 00:00:00
Title: Case C-44/99: Action brought on 16 February 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

C 100/12               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 10.4.1999
SupeÂrieur des Assurances Sociales du Grand-DucheÂ de                   Action brought on 16 February 1999 by the Commission
Luxembourg (Supreme Council of Social Insurance of the                  of the European Communities against the French Republic
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), received at the Court
Registry on 16 February 1999, for a preliminary ruling in                                      (Case C-44/99)
the case of Ghislain Leclere and Alina Deaconescu against
                                                                                              (1999/C 100/21)
Caisse Nationale des Prestations Familiales (National
Family Benefits Fund) on the following questions:
                                                                        An action against the French Republic was brought before
1. Are Articles 1(u)(i) and 10a and Annexes II and IIa to               the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
     Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1), which lay down the                16 February 1999 by the Commission of the European
     principle of the non-transferability of childbirth and             Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal
     maternity allowances, consistent with Article 48 and               Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
     51 of the EC Treaty?                                               Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                        Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
2. Is Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 to be interpreted as
     meaning that, in respect of dependant children, it                 The Commission of the European Communities claims
     grants workers in receipt of an invalidity pension who             that the Court should:
     reside in a different country from that which pays the
     invalidity pension, family allowances only, to the
     exclusion of the child-raising allowance which is not              1. declare that, by incorrectly applying the provisions of
     granted by reference to the number of children?                        Article 68(1) and Article 71(1)(b)(ii) of Council
                                                                            Regulation No 1408/71 (1) to employed persons other
                                                                            than frontier workers who, during their last
3. Is Article 73 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 to be                       employment, were residing in a Member State other
     interpreted as meaning that the recipient of an                        than the competent Member State, and, in particular,
     invalidity pension who continues to make compulsory                    by calculating unemployment benefits on the basis of
     sickness insurance contributions in the country which                  the normal wage or salary corresponding, in the place
     provides the pension, may, notwithstanding his                         where the unemployed person is residing or staying, to
     pension, be considered in that country as an employee                  an equivalent or similar employment to his last
     who is entitled to receive family benefits, including the              employment in the territory of another Member State,
     child-raising allowance, and Ð in the event that the                   and not on the basis of the wage or salary actually
     non-transferability clause is held to be incompatible                  received by the person concerned in his last
     with the Treaty Ð childbirth allowances?                               employment in the Member State where he was
                                                                            working immediately prior to becoming unemployed,
                                                                            the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                            under Article 68(1) and Article 71(1)(b)(ii) of Council
4. Does the concept of worker' within the meaning of
                                                                            Regulation No 1408/71 and under Article 48 and
     Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (2) include the recipient
                                                                            Article 51 of the EC Treaty;
     of an invalidity penison who resides in a different
     country from that which provides the pension?
                                                                        2. order the French Republic to pay the costs.
5. Is Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 to be
     interpreted as meaning that the recipient of an
     invalidity pension or his spouse may, on the basis of
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
     that article, enjoy social advantages which are
     denied him by Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71,
     notwithstanding the principle of non-transferability
     laid down therein in the event that that principle is              The French institutions have conferred entitlement to
     found by the Court to be compatible with the EC                    unemployment benefit on persons other than frontier
     Treaty?                                                            workers who are regarded as employed and who, during
                                                                        their last employment, were risiding in a Member State
                                                                        (France) other than the competent Member State
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on              (Germany), but who cannot, nevertheless, be regarded as
    the application of social security schemes to employed persons      frontier workers.
    and their families moving within the Community (OJ L 149,
    5.7.1971, p. 2).
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968
    on freedom of movement for workers within the Community             For the purposes of calculating that benefit, the competent
    (OJ L 257, 19.10.1968, p. 2).
                                                                        authority has taken as the reference wage or salary a wage
                                                                        or salary corresponding to that which the person
                                                                        concerned would have received if he had worked in
                                                                        France in an employment equivalent to his employment in
 ---pagebreak--- 10.4.1999              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 100/13
Germany, and not that received by him in his last                       provisions in order to comply with the directive referred
employment in Germany.                                                  to in the Commission's application.
                                                                        (1) OJ L 216, 20.8.1994, p. 12.
That method of calculation clearly penalises the worker
concerned on account of the fact that he is resident in a
Member State other than that in which he has worked,
and is incompatible with the main objective of Regulation
(EEC) No 1408/71, which is to facilitate freedom of
movement for workers.
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on
    the application of security schemes to employed persons and         Action brought on 16 February 1999 by the Commission
    to members of their families moving within the Community            of the European Communities against the French Republic
    (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416).
                                                                                                (Case C-46/99)
                                                                                               (1999/C 100/23)
                                                                        An action against the French Republic was brought before
                                                                        the Court of Justice of the Euroepan Communities on
Action brought on 16 February 1999 by the Commission                    16 February 1999 by the Commission of the European
of the European Communities against the French Republic                 Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal
                                                                        Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                          (Case C-45/99)                                Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                        Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                         (1999/C 100/22)
                                                                        The Commission of the European Communities claims
An action against the French Republic was brought before
                                                                        that the Court should:
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
16 February 1999 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis, Legal
                                                                        Ð declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to
Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
                                                                            adopt, alternatively to communicate to the
Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                            Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                            measures necessary in order fully to comply with
                                                                            Council Directive 93/104/EEC of 23 November 1993
                                                                            concerning certain aspects of the organisation of
The Commission of the European Communities claims
                                                                            working time (1), the French Republic has failed to
that the Court should:
                                                                            fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and under that
                                                                            directive;
Ð declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to
     adopt, alternatively to communicate to the
     Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative               Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.
     measures necessary in order fully to comply with
     Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the
     protection of young persons at work (1), the French                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
     Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
     EC Treaty and under that directive;
                                                                        Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.                           directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
                                                                        upon each Member State to which it is addressed,
                                                                        Member States are required to observe the time-limits laid
                                                                        down in directives for their transposition. The time-limit
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
                                                                        in the present case expired on 23 November 1996 without
                                                                        the French Republic having brought into force the
                                                                        necessary provisions in order to comply with the directive
Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty, according to which a
                                                                        referred to in the Commission's application.
directive is to be binding, as to the result to be achieved,
upon each Member State to which it is addressed,
Member States are required to observe the time-limits laid              (1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18.
down in directives for their transposition. The time-limit
in the present case expired on 22 June 1996 without the
French Republic having brought into force the necessary