Maria Masgio v Bundesknappschaft.
Date: 1991-03-07
12 When answering that question, it must first be borne in mind that, as the Court has held (see Case 305/87 Commission v Greece [1989] ECR 1461, paragraphs 12 and 13), the general prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality laid down by the first paragraph of Article 7 of the Treaty applies independently only to situations governed by Community law in regard to which the Treaty lays down no specific prohibition of discrimination.
16 Those provisions must be interpreted in the light of their objective, namely to contribute, particularly in the field of social security, to the establishment of the greatest possible freedom of movement for migrant workers, which is one of the foundations of the Community (see, for example, Case 10/78 Belbouab v Bundesknappschaft [1978] ECR 1915, paragraph 5; Case 284/84 Spruyt v Sociale Verzekeringsbank [1986] ECR 685, paragraph 18; and Case C-293/88 Winter-Lutzins v Sociale Verzekeringsbank [1990] ECR I-1623, paragraph 13).
17 In that regard, the Court has already held that Articles 48 to 51 of the Treaty and the Community legislation adopted in implementation thereof, in particular Regulation No 1408/71, are intended to prevent a worker who, by exercising his right of free movement, has been employed in more than one Member State from being placed in a worse position than one who has completed his entire career in only one Member State (see Case 104/76 Jansen v Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz [1977] ECR 829, paragraph 12, and Case 232/82 Baccini v ONEM [1983] ECR 583, paragraph 17).
18 More specifically, the Court has accepted that the aim of Articles 48 to 51 of the Treaty would not be attained if, as a consequence of the exercise of their right to freedom of movement, migrant workers were to lose the advantages in the field of social security guaranteed to them by the laws of a single Member State (see, for example, Case 24/75 Petroni v ONPTS [1975] ECR 1149, paragraph 13; Case 807/79 Gravina v Landesversicherungsanstalt Schwaben [1980] ECR 2205, paragraph 6; Case 284/84 Spruyt, cited above, paragraph 19; and Case C-293/88 Winter-Lutzins, cited above, paragraph 14). Such a consequence could deter Community workers from exercising their right to freedom of movement and would therefore constitute an obstacle to that freedom (see Case C-228/88 Bronzino v Kindergeldkassse [1990] ECR I-531, paragraph 12, and Case C-12/89 Gatto v Bundesanstalt fuer Arbeit [1990] ECR I-557).
19 It is clear that a provision such as that in issue before the national court is liable, even though it applies without regard to the nationality of the workers concerned, to place migrant workers in a worse position as regards social security than those who have worked in only one Member State.
24 It has been argued in the main proceedings that the difference in treatment resulting from the application of such legislation is justified by practical difficulties, namely the fact that where an accident pension is received in another Member State it is often impossible for the institution calculating the amount of the suspension of benefit to ascertain the annual earnings figure. However, Article 48(3) of the Treaty allows of no limitations on the exercise of the right of freedom of movement for workers other than those which can be justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. Consequently, there can be no justification for any obstacle to freedom of movement for workers other than in the cases explicitly provided for in the Treaty.