CELEX: 61981CC0275
Language: en
Date: 1982-06-17
Title: Opinion of Mr Advocate General VerLoren van Themaat delivered on 17 June 1982. # G.F. Koks v Raad van Arbeid. # Reference for a preliminary ruling: Centrale Raad van Beroep - Netherlands. # Social security - Calculation of rights acquired in differenct Member States - Discrimination between men and women. # Case 275/81.

OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE GENERAL
   VERLOREN VAN THEMAAT
   DELIVERED ON 17 JUNE 1982 (
         1
      )
   
      Mr President,
   
   
      Members of the Court,
   
   In Case 275/81, Koks v Raad van Arbeid [Labour Council], s'-Hertogenbosch, I agree with the Commission's observations so wholeheartedly that I unreservedly adopt them as my own. Therefore, I propose that the Court should answer the question submitted to it in the manner suggested by the Commission. I would merely add that, in my opinion, the answer given by the Raad van Arbeid to the question put to it by the Court does not appear to give rise to any complications in consequence of the levying of contributions, a matter to which the Court should give its attention in its ruling on the question raised. The rule on contributions appears in the present case to operate in precisely the same manner as tne rule on allowances. The payment of contributions to which no corresponding benefits are attached must also be regarded as undesirable in the light of the case-law of the Court. On the other hand, it is a common occurrence, as is well known, for benefits to be granted in relation to which no equivalent contributions have been paid.
   As the Commission emphasizes in its written observations, in contrast to the situation in Case 276/81 Kuypers the question whether the Netherlands rules on the conflict of laws contained in the Royal Decree of 19 October 1976 (Staatsblad 557) are in conformity with Community law need not be raised expressly in this case. As it rightly points out in those observations, the reason for the exclusion of Mrs Koks lies not in the fact that she was subject to the legislation of another Member Sute, but in the fact that her husband was not insured in accordance with the Netherlands legislation applicable in this case (in so far as that is not in conflict with the provisions of Regulation No 3).
   (
         1
      )	Translated from the Dutch.