1 BY ORDER OF 22 FEBRUARY 1973, LODGED AT THE REGISTRY OF THE COURT ON 22 MARCH 1973, THE COURT DE CASSATION OF FRANCE REQUESTED THE COURT OF JUSTICE TO GIVE A PRELIMINARY RULING ON SEVERAL QUESTIONS ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLES 10 OF REGULATION NO 3 AND 30 OF REGULATION NO 4, AND OF REGULATION NO 109/65 OF THE COUNCIL ( OJ NO 125, 9 . 7 . 1965 ), ON SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS .
2 THESE QUESTIONS ARE RAISED IN RELATION TO PROCEEDINGS CONCERNING A CLAIM FOR THE ASSUMPTION BY THE FRENCH INSTITUTIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE INVALIDITY PENSION OF A GERMAN WORKER WHO WISHES TO LEAVE ALGERIA, WHERE HE WAS GRANTED THE PENSION, TO TAKE UP RESIDENCE IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY .
3 THE WORKER, WHO IS THE APPELLANT IN THE MAIN ACTION, IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PENSION IS JUSTIFIED BY THE FACT THAT AT THE TIME IT WAS GRANTED TO HIM ALGERIA, ACCORDING TO ANNEX A TO REGULATION NO 3, WAS STILL PART OF THOSE TERRITORIES LISTED UNDER THE HEADING " FRANCE " AND WAS THUS DEEMED TO BE PART OF THE COMMUNITY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS ON SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS . ON THE FIRST QUESTION
4 THE FIRST QUESTION ASKS WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 30 OF REGULATION NO 4, WHICH APPLY TO CLAIMS FOR GRANT OF BENEFITS, ALSO APPLY TO TRANSFERS OF INVALIDITY PENSIONS .
5 ARTICLE 30 OF REGULATION NO 4 LAYS DOWN THE PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED IN THE EVENT OF A CLAIM FOR THE GRANT OF " BENEFITS UNDER ARTICLE 26 TO 28 OF REGULATION NO 3 " AND, IN PARTICULAR, DESIGNATES THE INSTITUTION WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE COUNTRY IN WHICH THE CLAIMANT IS RESIDENT, HAS TO INVESTIGATE THE CLAIM .
6 NO COMMUNITY PROVISION EXISTS WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE TRANSFER OF AN INVALIDITY PENSION FROM AN INSTITUTION OF ONE MEMBER STATE TO THAT OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE .
7 ARTICLE 10 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 3, PROHIBITING THE " REDUCTION, MODIFICATION, SUSPENSION, TERMINATION OR CONFISCATION OF A PENSION BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT THE RECIPIENT IS RESIDENT WITHIN A MEMBER STATE OTHER THAN THAT OF THE INSTITUTION WHICH SERVICES THE PENSION ", DOES NOT LEND SUPPORT TO THE THEORY THAT THE PENSION CAN BE TRANSFERRED .
8 ACCORDINGLY THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION MUST BE NEGATIVE . ON THE SECOND QUESTION
9 THE SECOND QUESTION ASKS WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF ANNEX A OF REGULATION NO 3 WHICH, IN THEIR FORMER WORDING, MENTIONED ALGERIA TOGETHER WITH METROPOLITAN FRANCE, LED TO PARTICULAR OBLIGATIONS FOR THE FRENCH SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTIONS COMPELLING THEM TO PAY BENEFITS IN CASES OF DEFAULT BY THE ALGERIAN INSTITUTIONS .
10 ANNEX A OF REGULATION NO 3, AT ARTICLE 1 ( A ) UNDER THE HEADING " FRANCE " MAKES SPECIFIC MENTION OF ALGERIA IN THE DEFINITION OF THE TERRITORIES TO WHICH IT APPLIES .
11 ALTHOUGH ALGERIA GAINED ITS INDEPENDENCE ON 1 JULY 1962, IT ONLY CEASED TO BE PART OF THE COMMUNITY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE RIGHTS OF NATIONALS OF THE MEMBER STATES BY VIRTUE OF REGULATION NO 109/65 OF THE COUNCIL OF 30 JUNE 1965, WHICH DELETED THE REFERENCES TO ALGERIA IN THE ANNEXES TO REGULATIONS NOS 3 AND 4, WITH EFFECT FROM 19 JANUARY 1965 .
12 ARTICLE 16 ( 2 ) OF REGULATION NO 109/65 EXPRESSLY STATES THAT THIS DELETION WAS MADE " WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ACQUIRED RIGHTS ".
13 IN ITS FORMER WORDING, THEREFORE, ANNEX A OF REGULATION NO 3 IMPLIES THAT THE FRENCH INSTITUTIONS MUST HONOUR RIGHTS ACQUIRED IN ALGERIA BY A MIGRANT WORKER BEFORE 19 JANUARY 1965 .
14 MOREOVER, IN VIEW OF THE PROHIBITION, CONTAINED IN ARTICLES 48-51 OF THE TREATY, ON ANY DISCRIMINATION BASED ON NATIONALITY BETWEEN WORKERS OF THE MEMBER STATES, ANY WORKER FROM ONE OF THE MEMBER STATES IS TO BE TREATED, FOR THE PURPOSES OF REGULATION NO 3, AS IF HE WERE A NATIONAL IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES .
15 ACCORDINGLY THE ANSWER TO THE SECOND QUESTION MUST BE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE . ON THE THIRD QUESTION
16 THE THIRD QUESTION ASKS WHETHER THE FRENCH SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTIONS ARE EQUALLY LIABLE IN RESPECT OF RIGHTS TO BENEFITS ARISING IN FAVOUR OF A NATIONAL OF A MEMBER STATE AND RECOGNIZED BY AN ALGERIAN INSTITUTION AFTER ALGERIA' S INDEPENDENCE BUT BEFORE THE INTRODUCTION OF REGULATION NO 109/65 OF 30 JUNE 1965 EXPRESSLY EXCLUDING ALGERIA FROM THE TERRITORIES TO WHICH REGULATION NO 3 APPLIES .
17 THE FACT THAT SUCH RIGHTS WERE RECOGNIZED AFTER 1 JULY 1962 DOES NOT RELIEVE THE FRENCH SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTIONS OF THEIR LIABILITY, WHICH WAS MAINTAINED IN RESPECT OF THOSE TERRITORIES LISTED WITH FRANCE AT ANNEX A UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THEY WERE STRUCK OFF AT THE INSTIGATION OF THE FRENCH REPUBLIC .
18 ANY OTHER FINDING WOULD CONSTITUTE A DISREGARD OF ARTICLE 16 OF REGULATION NO 109/65 WHICH WAS CONCEIVED PRECISELY FOR THE PROTECTION OF ACQUIRED RIGHTS .
19 ACCORDINGLY THE THIRD QUESTION MUST BE ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE . ON THE FOURTH QUESTION
20 THE FOURTH QUESTION ASKS WHETHER THE FRENCH SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTIONS ARE EQUALLY LIABLE IN THE EVENT OF A CLAIM FOR TRANSFER ADDRESSED TO A GERMAN INSTITUTION AFTER ALGERIA' S INDEPENDENCE, BUT WHICH WAS REFERRED TO A FRENCH INSTITUTION ONLY AFTER THE INTRODUCTION OF REGULATION NO 109/65 .
21 ARTICLE 10 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 3 PROHIBITS ANY REDUCTION, MODIFICATION, SUSPENSION, TERMINATION OR CONFISCATION OF A PENSION .
22 THUS THE APPELLANT IN THE MAIN ACTION, BEING IN RECEIPT OF AN INVALIDITY PENSION, HAD ACQUIRED A RIGHT TO RETAIN IT, WITHOUT ANY MODIFICATION, IF HE WERE TO TAKE UP RESIDENCE WITHIN A MEMBER STATE OTHER THAN THAT OF THE INSTITUTION LIABLE TO SERVICE HIS PENSION .
23 THE RIGHT TO A PENSION ACQUIRED AS FROM NOVEMBER 1962 COULD NOT BE AFFECTED BY THE SLOWNESS WITH WHICH THE ADMINISTRATION TRANSFERRED HIS CLAIM .
24 ACCORDINGLY THE FOURTH QUESTION MUST BE ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE . ON THE FIFTH QUESTION
25 FINALLY, IN THE EVENT OF THE FOREGOING QUESTIONS BEING ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, THE COURT IS REQUESTED TO STATE WHETHER THE WORKER WAS ENTITLED TO ADDRESS HIS CLAIM FOR THE TRANSFER OF HIS PENSION NOT TO THE LAST INSTITUTION TO WHICH HE WAS AFFILIATED, BUT TO A FRENCH INSTITUTION TO WHICH HE HAD FORMERLY BEEN AFFILIATED .
26 SUCH A WORKER WAS ASSIMILATED TO THE PERSONS OF FRENCH NATIONALITY MENTIONED IN ANNEX A TO REGULATION NO 3, PLACED IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, AND IS THUS A COMMUNITY NATIONAL SUBJECT TO A FRENCH INSTITUTION .
27 ARTICLE 10 OF REGULATION NO 3 LAYS DOWN THE PRINCIPLE OF THE IMMUTABILITY OF A PENSION EVEN WHERE " THE RECIPIENT IS RESIDENT WITHIN A MEMBER STATE OTHER THAN THAT OF THE INSTITUTION WHICH SERVICES THE PENSION ".
28 A MIGRANT WORKER WHO, BEFORE 19 JANUARY 1965, WAS RESIDENT WITHIN FRENCH TERRITORY, WITHIN THE MEANING OF ANNEX A TO REGULATION NO 3, IS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO ADDRESS HIS CLAIM TO THE INSTITUTIONS OF THAT MEMBER STATE . ACCORDINGLY THE ANSWER TO THE FIFTH QUESTION MUST BE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE .