1 BY ORDER DATED 21 SEPTEMBER 1972, RECEIVED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 11 OCTOBER 1972, THE LANDESSOZIALGERICHT FOR THE BADEN-WUERTTEMBERG DISTRICT REFERRED A QUESTION, UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY, RELATING TO THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 13 ( 1 ) ( C ), FIRST PARAGRAPH, OF REGULATION NO 3 OF 25 SEPTEMBER 1958, CONCERNING SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS ( OJ NO 30, P . 561 ), AS AMENDED PARTICULARLY BY REGULATION NO 24/64 OF THE COUNCIL ( OJ NO 47, P . 746/64 ), ON WHETHER THAT PROVISION APPLIES WHEN A WAGE-EARNER IS IN THE SERVICE OF SEVERAL EMPLOYERS IN SEVERAL MEMBER STATES .
2 IT IS SEEN FROM THE ORDER REFERRING THE MATTER THAT THE QUESTION REFERRED TO THE COURT AROSE IN AN ACTION PENDING BETWEEN A GERMAN SOCIAL SECURITY AGENCY, THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MAIN ACTION, AND A WORKER PERMANENTLY RESIDENT IN GERMANY AND EMPLOYED SIMULTANEOUSLY IN GERMANY AND FRANCE WHO SUSTAINED AN ACCIDENT AT WORK . THE GERMAN SOCIAL SECURITY AGENCY REFUSED TO ACCEPT A CLAIM ARISING FROM THIS ACCIDENT, ON THE GROUND THAT ARTICLE 13 ( 1 ) ( C ), FIRST PARAGRAPH, OF REGULATION NO 3 - WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE LEGISLATION OF THE STATE IN WHICH THE WORKER RESIDES IN CASES WHERE HE CARRIES ON HIS EMPLOYMENT WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF THAT STATE AND OF ONE OR SEVERAL OTHER MEMBER STATES - IS ONLY APPLICABLE SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE WORKER IS EMPLOYED BY A SINGLE EMPLOYER, WHICH IS NOT THE CASE HERE .
3 ACCORDING TO ARTICLE 12 OF REGULATION NO 3, THE LEGISLATION OF THE MEMBER STATE WITHIN WHOSE TERRITORY THE WORKER IS EMPLOYED IS, IN PRINCIPLE, APPLICABLE . ARTICLE 13 LAYS DOWN SEVERAL EXCEPTIONS TO THIS PRINCIPLE, THE AIM OF WHICH IS TO AVOID THE GENERAL RULE UNDER ARTICLE 12 LEADING TO THE APPLICATION OF SEVERAL LEGISLATIONS WHEN A WORKER' S PLACES OF EMPLOYMENT ARE SITUATED IN SEVERAL MEMBER STATES . TO THIS END, THE REGULATION HAS, ACCORDING TO CIRCUMSTANCE, CHOSEN PARTICULAR CONNECTING FACTORS DISTINCT FROM THAT OF THE PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT . ARTICLE 13 ( 1 ) ( C ), FIRST PARAGRAPH, ENVISAGES MORE PARTICULARLY THE CASE OF A WORKER WHO CARRIES ON HIS EMPLOYMENT WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF SEVERAL MEMBER STATES WHILE AT THE SAME TIME PERMANENTLY RESIDENT WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF ONE OF THE STATES IN WHICH HE IS EMPLOYED . IN THIS CASE, THE LEGISLATION APPLICABLE IS THAT OF THE STATE WITHIN WHOSE TERRITORY THE WORKER CARRIES ON PART OF HIS EMPLOYMENT AND HAS RESIDENCE .
4 THIS PROVISION IMPOSES NO SUPPLEMENTARY CONDITION AND APPLIES WITHOUT DISTINCTION WHEN THE WORKER IS ATTACHED TO ONE OR SEVERAL EMPLOYERS AND WHEREVER THE EVENT GIVING RISE TO A RIGHT OF INDEMNITY TOOK PLACE . TO MAKE THE DISTINCTIONS SUGGESTED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MAIN ACTION WOULD BE CONTRARY NOT ONLY TO THE WORDING OF THE REGULATION, BUT ALSO TO THE SYSTEM OF RULES ESTABLISHED BY ARTICLES 12 AND 13 . SUCH AN INTERPRETATION, IN THE CASE WHERE A WORKER IS NOT ATTACHED TO THE SAME EMPLOYER, LEADS TO A RESULT WHICH THE REGULATION WISHED PRECISELY TO AVOID, THAT IS TO SAY THE APPLICATION OF SEVERAL LEGISLATIONS . IF SUCH A SOLUTION COULD NECESSARILY BE CONCEIVED IN THE CASE OF AN ACCIDENT AT WORK OCCURRING WITHIN THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF APPLICATION OF ONE OF THE LEGISLATIONS CONCERNED, IT WOULD LEAD TO INSOLUBLE DIFFICULTIES IN THE CASE OF RISKS WHICH, BY THEIR NATURE, ARE NOT CAPABLE OF BEING THUS LOCALIZED .
5 THE ANSWER MUST THEREFORE BE THAT ARTICLE 13 ( 1 ) ( C ), FIRST PARAGRAPH, OF REGULATION NO 3 MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT IT APPLIS INDEPENDENTLY OF WHETHER THE WORKER IS IN THE SERVICE OF ONE OR SEVERAL EMPLOYERS . FURTHER, THIS INTERPRETATION ACCORDS WITH ARTICLE 14 ( 1 ) ( C ) OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 OF THE COUNCIL ( OJ NO L 149, P . 2 ), WHICH ENTERED INTO FORCE ON 1 OCTOBER 1972 AND WHICH, BY ARTICLE 94 ( 3 ) PROVIDES THAT A BENEFIT SHALL BE PAYABLE IN PURSUANCE OF THAT REGULATION EVEN IF IT RELATES TO AN EVENT BEFORE THE DATE OF ITS ENTRY INTO FORCE .