CELEX: C2000/316/25
Language: en
Date: 2000-11-04 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of 26 September 2000 in Case C-262/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof, Antwerp (Belgium)): Rĳksdienst voor Pensioenen v Robert Engelbrecht (Social security — Freedom of movement for workers — Retirement pension — Increase in respect of dependent spouse — Articles 12 and 46a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Overlapping of pensions awarded under the legislation of different Member States)

C 316/14                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          4.11.2000
      (third non-life insurance Directive), does not preclude mutual         amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of 30 April
      benefit societies engaged solely in insurance business from            1992 (OJ 1992 L 136, p. 7) — the Court, composed of:
      creating between themselves a body with legal personality and          G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, D.A.O. Edward (Rappor-
      legal autonomy — such as an association of mutual benefit              teur), L. Sevón and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers),
      societies — which engages in commercial business, provided             P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann and
      that the capital subscribed to that body by those societies does       H. Ragnemalm, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; D. Louter-
      not exceed the value of their free assets and provided that, in        man-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
      each case, the society’s liability is limited to the value of its      given a judgment on 26 September 2000, in which it has
      capital contribution.                                                  ruled:
2.    Article 8(1)(b) of Directive 73/239, as amended by Directive
      92/49, is sufficiently precise and unconditional to be relied          Where the competent authorities of a Member State apply a provision
      upon before the national courts as against the administrative          of law
      authorities and entails the inapplicability of any rule of national
      law incompatible with it.                                              —      which fixes the amount of the retirement pension awarded to a
                                                                                    married worker,
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
                                                                             —      which provides for that pension to be reduced, by the amount of
                                                                                    a pension awarded to his spouse under the scheme of another
                                                                                    Member State, but
                                                                             —      which provides for the application of a derogating clause in
                                                                                    respect of overlapping where the pension paid elsewhere is less
                                                                                    than a certain amount,
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             it is contrary to Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
                                                                             Article 39 EC) for those authorities to reduce the amount of the
                       of 26 September 2000                                  pension awarded to a migrant worker by the amount of a pension
                                                                             awarded to his spouse under the scheme of another Member State,
in Case C-262/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                    when the grant of that latter pension does not involve any increase in
the Arbeidshof, Antwerp (Belgium)): Rijksdienst voor                         the couple’s total income.
               Pensioenen v Robert Engelbrecht (1)
(Social security — Freedom of movement for workers —                         (1) OJ C 295 of 27.9.1997.
Retirement pension — Increase in respect of dependent
spouse — Articles 12 and 46a of Regulation (EEC)
No 1408/71 — Overlapping of pensions awarded under the
              legislation of different Member States)
                           (2000/C 316/25)
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal
                                                                             (England & Wales), by order of that court of 20 July 2000,
                                                                             in the case of A. Lawrence and others against 1) Regent
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       Office Care Ltd, 2) Commercial Catering Group and
                    in the European Court Reports)                                               3) Mitie Secure Services Ltd
In Case C-262/97: reference to the Court under Article 177 of                                           (Case C-320/00)
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Arbeidshof,
Antwerp (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                                           (2000/C 316/26)
pending before that court between Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen
and Robert Engelbrecht — on the interpretation of Article 48
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) and                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Articles 12(2) and 46a(3)(c) of Council Regulation (EEC)                     European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal
No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social                      (England & Wales) of 20 July 2000, which was received at the
security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed                       Court Registry on 22 August 2000, for a preliminary ruling in
persons and to members of their families moving within the                   the case of A. Lawrence and others against 1) Regent Office
Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation                      Care Ltd, 2) Commercial Catering Group and 3) Mitie Secure
(EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6), as                    Services Ltd, on the following questions: