Henia Babahenini v Belgian State.
Date: 1998-01-15
17 The Court has consistently held in this regard (see Case C-103/94 Krid v CNAVTS [1995] ECR I-719, paragraphs 21 to 23, and, by analogy, Kziber, cited above, paragraphs 15 to 22, Case C-58/93 Yousfi v Belgian State [1994] ECR I-1353, paragraphs 16 to 18, and Case C-126/95 Hallouzi-Choho v Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank [1996] ECR I-4807, paragraph 19, dealing with Article 41(1) of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco, signed in Rabat on 27 April 1976 and concluded on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2211/78 of 26 September 1978 (OJ 1978 L 264, p. 1), a provision drafted in the same terms as Article 39(1) of the EEC-Algeria Cooperation Agreement) that Article 39(1) of the Agreement, which lays down in clear, precise and unconditional terms a prohibition of discrimination, based on nationality, against workers of Algerian nationality and the members of their families living with them in the field of social security, contains a clear and precise obligation which is not subject, in its implementation or effects, to the adoption of any subsequent measure in respect of any question other than the matters mentioned in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of that article.  In those judgments, the Court added that the object of the Agreement, which is to promote overall cooperation between the Contracting Parties, in particular in the field of labour, confirms that the principle of non-discrimination enshrined in Article 39(1) is capable of governing directly the legal position of individuals.
18 The Court has inferred from this (see Krid, paragraph 24, and, by analogy, Kziber, paragraph 23, Yousfi, paragraph 19, and Hallouzi-Choho, paragraph 20, all cited above) that Article 39(1) has direct effect, with the result that persons to whom that provision applies are entitled to rely on it in proceedings before the national courts.
The scope of Article 39(1) of the Agreement
20 With regard, first, to the persons covered by Article 39(1) of the Agreement, it should be noted that the provision applies first and foremost to workers of Algerian nationality, an expression which, according to settled case-law (see Krid, paragraph 26, and, by analogy, Kziber, paragraph 27, Yousfi, paragraph 21, and Hallouzi-Choho, paragraph 22), covers both active workers and those who have left the labour market, in particular after reaching the age required for receipt of an old-age pension.
24 Suffice it to note in this regard that the scope ratione personae of Article 39(1) of the Agreement is not the same as that of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6), defined in Article 2 thereof, with the result that the case-law in which a distinction is drawn between the derived rights and the personal rights of the members of the migrant worker's family in the context of Regulation No 1408/71, and which, moreover, has been recently clarified by the judgment in Case C-308/93 Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank v Cabanis-Issarte [1996] ECR I-2097, cannot be applied in the context of the Agreement, as is clear from paragraph 39 of the judgment in Krid (see, by way of analogy, the judgment in Kziber and paragraph 30 of the judgment in Hallouzi-Choho).
26 Secondly, it follows from Krid, paragraph 32, and, by analogy, from Kziber, paragraph 25, Yousfi, paragraph 24, and Hallouzi-Choho, paragraph 25, that the term `social security' contained in that provision must be deemed to bear the same meaning as the identical term used in Regulation No 1408/71.
27 Since its amendment by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 of 30 April 1992 (OJ 1992 L 136, p. 1), Regulation No 1408/71 expressly refers, in Article 4(2a)(b) (see also Article 10a(1) of and Annex IIa to that regulation), to benefits intended to ensure specific protection for the disabled.  Furthermore, even before Regulation No 1408/71 was so amended, it had been settled case-law since the judgment in Case 187/73 Callemeyn v Belgian State [1974] ECR 553 that disability allowances came within the scope ratione materiae of that regulation by virtue of Article 4(1)(b) thereof, which refers expressly to `invalidity benefits' (see also, to that effect, Yousfi, paragraph 25).