CELEX: 61964CJ0031
Language: en
Date: 1965-03-11
Title: Judgment of the Court of 11 March 1965. # "De Sociale Voorzorg" Mutual Insurance Fund v W.H. Bertholet. # Reference for a preliminary ruling: Arrondissementsrechtbank Maastricht - Netherlands. # Case 31-64.

Avis juridique important

|

61964J0031

Judgment of the Court of 11 March 1965.  -  "De Sociale Voorzorg" Mutual Insurance Fund v W.H. Bertholet.  -  Reference for a preliminary ruling: Arrondissementsrechtbank Maastricht - Netherlands.  -  Case 31-64.  

European Court reports French edition Page 00111 Dutch edition Page 00108 German edition Page 00112 Italian edition Page 00108 English special edition Page 00081 Danish special edition Page 00023 Greek special edition Page 00035 Portuguese special edition Page 00035

SummaryPartiesSubject of the caseGroundsDecision on costsOperative part
Keywords

++++1 . FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR PERSONS - MIGRANT WORKERS - REGULATION NO 3 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE EEC - PERSONS ENTITLED TO BENEFIT - ABSENCE OF LIMITATION  ( REGULATION NO 3 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE EEC, ARTICLE 4 )  2 . FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR PERSONS - MIGRANT WORKERS - INSURANCE - BENEFITS PAYABLE UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF A MEMBER STATE FOR INJURY SUFFERED IN THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER STATE - RIGHT OF INSTITUTIONS LIABLE FOR PAYMENT OF BENEFIT WITH REGARD TO A THIRD PARTY ACCOUNTABLE FOR COMPENSATION - APPLICATION OF THE RELATIVE PROVISIONS  ( REGULATION NO 3 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE EEC, ARTICLE 52 )  

Summary

1 . IT FOLLOWS FROM THE GENERAL WORDING OF ARTICLE 4(1 ) OF REGULATION NO 3 THAT THE APPLICATION OF THIS REGULATION IS LIMITED NEITHER TO WORKERS WHO HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED IN SEVERAL STATES NOR TO WORKERS WHO ARE OR HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED IN ONE STATE WHILE RESIDING OR HAVING RESIDED IN ANOTHER .  2 . ( A ) THE PROVISIONS OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 52 OF REGULATION NO 3 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE EEC CONCERNING SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS ARE APPLICABLE EVEN BEFORE A BILATERAL AGREEMENT, AS REFERRED TO IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THAT ARTICLE, HAS BEEN CONCLUDED BETWEEN THE MEMBER STATES CONCERNED, THIS PARAGRAPH BEING INTENDED ONLY TO ALLOW THE STATES TO SETTLE AMONG THEMSELVES ANY POSSIBLE DETAILS CONCERNING THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS IN ORDER TO FACILITATE THE ADAPTATION OF NATIONAL LAW TO THE COMMUNITY RULES .  ( B ) THESE PROVISIONS ARE APPLICABLE WHERE A WORKER WHO, UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF ONE MEMBER STATE, IS IN RECEIPT OF ONE OF THE BENEFITS MENTIONED IN ARTICLE 2 OF REGULATION NO 3 IN RESPECT OF AN INJURY SUSTAINED IN THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM COMPENSATION FOR THAT INJURY FROM A THIRD PARTY IN THE LATTER STATE'S TERRITORY .  

Parties

IN CASE 31/64  REFERENCE TO THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY BY THE ARRONDISSEMENTSRECHTBANK, MAASTRICHT ( NETHERLANDS ), FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THAT COURT BETWEEN  ' DE SOCIALE VOORZORG ' MUTUAL INSURANCE FUND, BRUSSELS,  PLAINTIFF,  AND  W.H . BERTHOLET, RESIDING AT SPEKHOLZERHEIDE, PARISH OF KERKRADE ( NETHERLANDS ),  DEFENDANT,  

Subject of the case

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF REGULATION NO 3 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY CONCERNING SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF 16 DECEMBER 1958, PP . 561 ET SEQ .), 

Grounds

P.86  THE COURT HAS BEEN PROPERLY REQUESTED TO GIVE A PRELIMINARY RULING UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY BY THE ARRONDISSEMENTSRECHTBANK, MAASTRICHT .  I - ON THE FIRST QUESTION  THE COURT IS REQUESTED BY THE FIRST QUESTION TO RULE WHETHER THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 52 OF REGULATION NO 3 IS APPLICABLE BEFORE THE BILATERAL AGREEMENT REFERRED IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THAT ARTICLE HAS BEEN CONCLUDED BETWEEN THE MEMBER STATES CONCERNED .  THE PROVISIONS OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 52 ARE WORDED IN PEREMPTORY TERMS .  MOREOVER, THE SAID PARAGRAPH, IN PROVIDING THAT ' ANY CLAIMS BY THE INSTITUTION LIABLE FOR PAYMENT OF BENEFIT AGAINST SUCH THIRD PARTY SHALL BE GOVERNED BY THE FOLLOWING RULES ', REFERS ONLY TO SUBPARAGRAPHS ( A ) AND ( B ). THE PROVISIONS OF THIS PARAGRAPH ARE CLEAR AND CAPABLE OF DIRECT APPLICATION WITHOUT DIFFICULTY .  IN CONNEXION WITH THE FOREGOING IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHETHER THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 52, IN PROVIDING THAT ' IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE PROVISIONS SHALL BE THE SUBJECT OF BILATERAL AGREEMENTS ' MAY RESULT IN A DEROGATION FROM THE FIRST PARAGRAPH .  IT DOES NOT APPEAR AT ALL FROM ARTICLE 52 CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY THAT IT IS INTENDED TO MAKE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RIGHTS CREATED BY IT DEPENDENT ON THE CONCLUSION OF THE SAID AGREEMENTS OR AT THE RISK OF CREATING DISCRIMINATION, OF MAKING THE DATE OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE RIGHTS VARY AT THE DISCRETION OF EACH MEMBER STATE .  MOREOVER, THE RIGHTS CONFERRED ON THE NATIONAL SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTIONS BY VIRTUE OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 52 CONSTITUTE A LOGICAL AND FAIR COUNTERPART TO THE EXTENSION OF THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE SAID INSTITUTIONS THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY AS A RESULT OF THE PROVISIONS OF REGULATION NO 3 .  THE SAID FIRST PARAGRAPH FAILS TO BE APPLIED ON THE SAME BASIS AND UNDER THE SAME CONDITIONS AS THOSE PROVISIONS .  THE REASON FOR THE EXISTENCE OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH LIES IN THE CAUTION OF ITS AUTHORS WHO WISHED TO ALLOW THE STATES TO SETTLE AMONG THEMSELVES ANY POSSIBLE DETAILS CONCERNING THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS IN ORDER TO FACILITATE THE ADAPTATION OF NATIONAL LAW TO THE COMMUNITY RULES .  P.87  ACCORDINGLY THE FIRST QUESTION ASKED BY THE ARRONDISSEMENTSRECHTBANK, MAASTRICHT, MUST BE ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE .  II - ON THE SECOND QUESTION  BY THE SECOND QUESTION THE COURT IS REQUESTED TO RULE WHETHER THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 52 OF REGULATION NO 3 IS APPLICABLE WHERE A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CAUSING INJURY HAS OCCURRED IN THE TERRITORY OF A MEMBER STATE WHICH THE INJURED WORKER WHOSE RESIDENCE AND PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT ARE BOTH SITUATED IN THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE MUST CROSS .  1 . A RESTRICTION OF THE FIELD OF APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 52 RATIONE PERSONAE CANNOT BE CONSTRUED FROM THE WORDING OF THE PROVISION ITSELF .  INDEED, ACCORDING TO THE WORDING OF THAT PROVISION, IT IS ONLY NECESSARY FOR THE PERSON CONCERNED TO BE ' IN RECEIPT OF BENEFIT UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF ONE MEMBER STATE, IN RESPECT OF AN INJURY SUSTAINED IN THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE ' AND TO BE ' ENTITLED TO CLAIM COMPENSATION FOR THAT INJURY FROM A THIRD PARTY IN THE LATTER STATE'S TERRITORY '.  THERE IS NO REASON TO RESTRICT THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 52 .  BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 4(1 ), REGULATION NO 3 IS APPLICABLE TO ' WAGE-EARNERS OR ASSIMILATED WORKERS WHO ARE OR HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO THE LEGISLATION OF ONE OR MORE OF THE MEMBER STATES AND ARE NATIONALS OF A MEMBER STATE OR ARE STATELESS PERSONS OR REFUGEES PERMANENTLY RESIDENT IN THE TERRITORY OF A MEMBER STATE, AS ALSO TO THE MEMBERS OF THEIR FAMILIES AND THEIR SURVIVORS '.  THE GENERAL WORDING OF THIS PROVISION SHOWS THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE REGULATION IS LIMITED NEITHER TO WORKERS WHO HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED IN SEVERAL STATES NOR TO WORKERS WHO ARE OR HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED IN ONE STATE WHILE RESIDING OR HAVING RESIDED IN ANOTHER .  THE FOREGOING REASONING IS CONFIRMED BY A SERIES OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF REGULATION NO 3; IN PARTICULAR, ARTICLE 19(1 ) WHICH, AS THE COURT HAS HELD PREVIOUSLY, IS APPLICABLE TO WORKERS WHO, FOR WHATEVER REASON, ARE TEMPORARILY RESIDENT IN THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE .  2 . IT SHOULD STILL BE CONSIDERED WHETHER ARTICLE 52 IS NOT INAPPLICABLE RATIONE MATERIAE, FOR THE REASON THAT ACCIDENTS OCCURRING IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED BY THE ARRONDISSEMENTSRECHTBANK, MAASTRICHT, ARE NOT INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS .  ARTICLE 52 APPLIES WHERE THE INJURED PARTY HAS RECEIVED ' BENEFIT ' UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF A MEMBER STATE .  ARTICLE 1(S ) OF REGULATION NO 3 GIVES A GENERAL DEFINITION OF THE TERM ' BENEFITS '.  ARTICLE 2(1 ) REFERS TO A SERIES OF SPECIFIC BENEFITS, GOVERNED BY NATIONAL LEGISLATION, TO WHICH THE REGULATION APPLIES SHOULD THE OCCASION ARISE .  IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES ARTICLE 52 MUST BE REGARDED AS BEING APPLICABLE, SINCE UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF A MEMBER STATE THE PERSON IN QUESTION HAS RECEIVED BENEFIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH ONE OF THE HEADINGS LISTED IN ARTICLE 2(1 ) MENTIONED ABOVE .  CONSEQUENTLY THE SECOND QUESTION ASKED BY THE ARRONDISSEMENTSRECHTBANK, MAASTRICHT, MUST BE ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE .  

Decision on costs

THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE EEC, WHICH SUBMITTED ITS OBSERVATIONS TO THE COURT, ARE NOT RECOVERABLE AND AS THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE, IN SO FAR AS THE PARTIES TO THE MAIN ACTION ARE CONCERNED, A STEP IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THE ARRONDISSEMENTSRECHTBANK, MAASTRICHT, THE DECISION ON COSTS IS A MATTER FOR THAT COURT . 

Operative part

THE COURT  IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTIONS REFERRED TO IT BY THE ARRONDISSEMENTSRECHTBANK, MAASTRICHT, BY JUDGMENT OF 28 MAY 1964, HEREBY RULES :  1 . THE PROVISIONS OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF ARTICLE 52 OF REGULATION NO 3 OF THE COUNCIL OF THE EEC CONCERNING SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF 16 DECEMBER 1958, PP.561 ET SEQ .) ARE APPLICABLE EVEN BEFORE A BILATERAL AGREEMENT, AS REFERRED TO IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THAT ARTICLE, HAS BEEN CONCLUDED BETWEEN THE MEMBER STATES CONCERNED;  2 . THESE PROVISIONS ARE APPLICABLE WHERE A WORKER WHO, UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF ONE MEMBER STATE, IS IN RECEIPT OF ONE OF THE BENEFITS MENTIONED IN ARTICLE 2 OF REGULATION NO 3 IN RESPECT OF AN INJURY SUSTAINED IN THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM COMPENSATION FOR THAT INJURY FROM A THIRD PARTY IN THE LATTER STATE'S TERRITORY;  AND HOLDS :  3 . IT IS FOR THE ARRONDISSEMENTSRECHTBANK, MAASTRICHT, TO DECIDE UPON THE COSTS OF THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS .