1 IN A LETTER FROM ITS PRESIDENT , RECEIVED AT THE COURT ON 19 JANUARY 1979 , THE RAAD VAN BEROEP ( SOCIAL SECURITY COURT ), ZWOLLE , REFERRED TO THE COURT A QUESTION CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 10 ( 1 ) ( B ) OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 574/72 OF THE COUNCIL OF 21 MARCH 1972 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL , L 74 , P . 1 ), FIXING THE PROCEDURE FOR IMPLEMENTING REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1408/71 ON THE APPLICATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY SCHEMES TO EMPLOYED PERSONS AND THEIR FAMILIES MOVING WITHIN THE COMMUNITY , AS AMENDED BY COUNCIL REGULATIONS NO 878/73 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1973 , L 86 , P . 1 ) AND NO 1209/76 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1976 , L 138 , P . 1 )
2 THIS QUESTION WAS RAISED IN THE COURSE OF AN ACTION BROUGHT BY A WOMAN OF GERMAN NATIONALITY ENTITLED TO A NETHERLANDS INVALIDITY PENSION , WHO BY VIRTUE THEREOF WAS RECEIVING A NETHERLANDS FAMILY ALLOWANCE IN PURSUANCE OF ARTICLE 77 ( 2 ) ( A ) OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 , AGAINST THE DECISION BY THE COMPETENT NETHERLANDS INSTITUTION TO SUSPEND PAYMENT OF THAT ALLOWANCE BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 10 ( 1 ) ( B ) OF REGULATION NO 574/72 . THE DECISION WAS BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE RECIPIENT ' S HUSBAND WAS EXERCISING A PROFESSION OR TRADE IN GERMANY AND WAS DRAWING DEPENDENT CHILD BENEFITS THERE .
3 THE PROVISION RELIED ON WITHHOLDS PAYMENT OF A FAMILY ALLOWANCE FROM ANYONE ENTITLED TO IT AS A RESULT OF AN INVALIDITY PENSION IF ' ' HIS SPOUSE ' ' , THAT IS TO SAY , HIS WIFE ( DIENS ECHTGENOTE ) ACCORDING TO THE DUTCH VERSION OF ARTICLE 10 , EXERCISES A PROFESSIONAL OR TRADE ACTIVITY IN THE TERRITORY OF A MEMBER STATE WHERE ENTITLEMENT TO FAMILY BENEFITS IS NOT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF INSURANCE OR EMPLOYMENT . SINCE THE BENEFICIARY ' S HUSBAND WAS RECEIVING FAMILY BENEFITS IN GERMANY , THE QUESTION WHETHER ARTICLE 10 SHOULD BE APPLIED AROSE OWING TO THE USE OF THE WORD ' ' ECHTGENOTE ' ' ( WIFE ) IN THE DUTCH VERSION OF THAT ARTICLE .
4 BELIEVING THAT THIS WAS A QUESTION OF INTERPRETING COMMUNITY LAW , THE RAAD VAN BEROEP REFERRED THE FOLLOWING QUESTION TO THE COURT FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING : ' ' MUST ' DIENS ECHTGENOTE ' ( WHOSE WIFE ) IN ARTICLE 10 ( 1 ) ( B ) OF REGULATION NO 574/72 ALSO BE UNDERSTOOD TO MEAN A MARRIED MAN WHO IS ENGAGED IN A PROFESSIONAL OR TRADE ACTIVITY IN A MEMBER STATE AND WHOSE WIFE IS ENTITLED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 77 ( 2 ) ( A ) OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 TO FAMILY ALLOWANCES UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE? ' '
5 IN FACT THE WORDING OF THE PROVISION IN QUESTION , CONSIDERED SOLELY IN THE DUTCH VERSION , IS CAPABLE OF GIVING THE IMPRESSION THAT THE TERM USED REFERS EXCLUSIVELY TO A PERSON OF THE FEMALE SEX .
6 HOWEVER , THE NEED FOR A UNIFORM INTERPRETATION OF COMMUNITY REGULATIONS MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR THAT PASSAGE TO BE CONSIDERED IN ISOLATION AND REQUIRES THAT IT SHOULD BE INTERPRETED AND APPLIED IN THE LIGHT OF THE VERSIONS EXISTING IN THE OTHER OFFICIAL LANGUAGES .
7 A COMPARISON WITH THE OTHER VERSIONS OF THE PROVISION IN QUESTION REVEALS THAT , IN ALL THE OTHER VERSIONS , A WORD HAS BEEN USED WHICH INCLUDES EQUALLY MALE AND FEMALE WORKERS ( ' ' AEGTEFAELLEN ' ' , ' ' EHEGATTE ' ' , ' ' SPOUSE ' ' , ' ' CONJOINT ' ' , ' ' CONIUGE ' ' ).
8 THIS INTERPRETATION IS BORNE OUT ON THE ONE HAND BY THE PURPOSE OF THE PROVISION , WHICH IS TO AVOID THE OVERLAPPING OF FAMILY ALLOWANCES FOR THE SAME CHILDREN AND ON THE OTHER HAND BY THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL TREATMENT FOR MALE AND FEMALE WORKERS IN THE FIELD OF SOCIAL SECURITY .
9 THE REPLY TO THE RAAD VAN BEROEP SHOULD THEREFORE BE THAT THE EXPRESSION ' ' DIENS ECHTGENOTE ' ' ( WHOSE WIFE ) IN ARTICLE 10 ( 1 ) ( B ) OF REGULATION NO 574/72 INCLUDES A MARRIED MAN WHO IS ENGAGED IN A PROFESSIONAL OR TRADE ACTIVITY IN A MEMBER STATE AND WHOSE WIFE IS ENTITLED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 77 ( 2 ) ( A ) OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 TO FAMILY ALLOWANCES UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE .