C-31/64

2. Freedom of movement for persons — Migrant workers — Insurance — Benefits payable under the legislation of a Member State for injury suffered in the territory of another State — Right of institutions liable for payment of benefit with regard to a third party accountable for compensation — Application of the relative provisions (Regulation No 3 of the Council of the EEC, Article 52)

1. It follows from the general wording being intended only to allow the of Article 4 (1) of Regulation No 3 States to settle among themselves that the application of this Regulation any possible details concerning the is limited neither to workers who application of the provisions in have been employed in several States order to facilitate the adaptation of nor to workers who are or have been national law to the Community employed in one State while residing rules. or having resided in another. (b) These provisions are applicable 2. (a) The provisions of the first para­ where a worker who, under the graph of Article 52 of Regulation legislation of one Member State, No 3 of the Council of the EEC is in receipt of one of the benefits concerning social security for mentioned in Article 2 of Regu­ migrant workers are applicable lation No 3 in respect of an injury even before a bilateral agreement, sustained in the territory of an­ as referred to in the second para­ other Member State is entitled to graph of that Article, has been claim compensation for that injury concluded between the Member from a third party in the latter States concerned, this paragraph State's territory.

on the interpretation of certain provisions of Regulation No 3 of the Council of the European Economic Community concerning social security for migrant workers (Official Journal of 16 December 1958, pp. 561 et seq.),

THE COURT

composed of: Ch. L. Hammes, President, A. M. Donner and R. Lecourt, Presidents of Chambers, L. Delvaux, A. Trabucchi, W. Strauß (Rapporteur) and R. Monaco, Judges,

Advocate-General: J. Gand Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

— on 19 September 1959, a collision The defendant, Mr Bertholet, replies: took place at Kerkrade (Netherlands) — that under Netherlands legislation between a lorry driven by Mr Meijers there is no subrogation; who was employed by the defendant, the proprietor of the lorry, and a — that Article 52 is inapplicable in the scooter which was carrying as a present case for two reasons: on the passenger Mr de Ronchi who was one hand, an agreement such as that injured; provided for in the last paragraph — the liability for this collision being of that provision has not been drawn that of Mr Meijers, the defendant is up between Belgium and the Nether­ lands; on the other hand, Mr de liable for the damage suffered by Mr de Ronchi; Ronchi is not a migrant worker. — at the date of the accident Mr de The Maastricht court agrees with the Ronchi was employed by the firm defendant that the said subrogation can­ Gerlach & Co. at Antwerp (herein­ not be inferred from Netherlands law, after described as 'Gerlach'), which which is applicable according to the is engaged in transport and which rules of private international law as the had sent him to the frontier post at lex loci delicti commissi; this being so, Kessenich (Belgium); the first question set out at 1 above must be asked. — Gerlach had insured the plaintiff against all the risks provided for by As to the second question the Maas­ tricht court considers: the Belgian legislation concerning compensation for damages resulting — that in view of the facts set out in from accidents at work. Under the this question, Mr de Ronchi cannot contract of insurance the plaintiff be regarded as a migrant worker; paid on 'behalf of Gerlach to de — that for the same reasons the person Ronchi a sum of 85 402 Belgian concerned cannot be regarded as a francs. frontier worker within the meaning of 3. It appears from the file that before Regulation No 36/63 of 2 April 1963 the Maastricht court the parties relied (Official Journal of 20 April 1963, particularly upon the following sub­ p. 1314); missions and arguments: — that nevertheless it is necessary to The applicant, 'De Sociale Voorzorg' ask whether it is proper to attribute Mutual Insurance Fund, states a more general applicability to Article — that under the Belgian legislation 52, in the sense that the latter may Gerlach was required to pay the apply to cases such as the present above-mentioned amount to Mr de one.

III — Observations of the the Regulation wanted to delay the Commission of the coming into force of the said Article EEC until the various successive dates on which the bilateral agreements were The observations of the Commission made. On examining the solutions adop­ may be summarized as follows: ted by the rules of the Member States for putting laws into effect, the Com­ 1. As to the first question mission considers that the reference to measures taken in implementation could A — As a preliminary matter, the Com­ not lead to the suspension of the en­ mission points out: forcement of Article 52 unless its putt­ ing into operation was impossible until — that in Regulation No 3 Articles 51 the measures taken in implementation and 52 are the only examples of new had been promulgated. rules of law made by the Commun­ Such is not the case, the rule in ques­ ity legislature which rely for their tion being sufficiently clear and complete application on classical bilateral con­ not to require measures to be taken in ventions to be concluded in the implementation of it. This is corrobora­ future; ted by the bilateral agreements which have been concluded between certain — that it is appropriate to recall that the said Regulation was first drafted as Member States since the into entry a classical international convention force of Regulation No 3, and which and that the provision in dispute was have added nothing to Article 52; the taken without alteration from the agreement made between Germany and original draft; Luxembourg even declared expressly 'that the first and second sentences of — that the working documents are such Article 52 … shall be fully applicable that it is not possible to ascertain with precision the intention of the without the agreement provided for by the third sentence being required'. authors of the said provision; that it (b) Article 85 of Regulation No 4 of the appears nevertheless that the last Council of the EEC (Official Journal of sentence of the provision is due only to a desire for caution; the drafts­ 16 December 1958, pp. 597 et seq.), at least in the German version ('Treffen men, not being experts in civil law, feared that the rules of Article 52 die zuständigen Behörden von Mitglied­ were not sufficient in themselves; staaten zweiseitige Vereinbarungen zur Anwendung der Artikel 51 und 52 der — that, however, it is now appropriate Verordnung, so …'), suggests that in to consider whether this anxiety is the minds of the authors bilateral agree­ justified. ments are not indispensable. (c) The precautions taken by the authors of Article 52 might be explained by the B — In favour of the immediate applica­ fact that this provision was drafted at bility of Article 52, the following the same time as Article 51 which does arguments may be put forward: not suffice by itself.

(b) It does not appear to be open to Member State whilst originating in an dispute that at the time when the other. The Commission considers that Article in question was drafted, and such is not the case and that it is proper in the perspective of its insertion to reply affirmatively to the second into a classical convention, its question from the Maastricht court. authors had the intention of deferr (a) Article 4 of the Regulation gives a ing the applicability of Article 51 quite general definition to this field of and 52, and thus of subordinating application {'wage-earners or assimilated them to subsequent bilateral agree workers who are or have been subject ments; to the legislation of one or more of the (c) Four Member States have actually Member States'). made bilateral agreements and, in (b) The competence conferred by so doing, have interpreted Article Article 51 of the EEC Treaty upon the 52 so as not to make the rule set Council does not apply only to migrant out in it immediately applicable. workers stricto sensu, as is shown by the phrase 'such measures … as are D — In conclusion, the Commission is necessary to provide freedom of move disposed to defend the argument favour ment for workers' and the words 'to ing immediate enforceability, for two this end' appearing in the first para essential reasons: graph of that Article.

applicable throughout the Commun which deals with workers moving in ity and that private individuals on search of employment, proves that the whom these provisions confer rights Treaty does not apply only to the cannot exercise them equally in all the Member States. migrant worker stricto sensu. (d) The same tendency becomes appar ent from the judgment of the Court in 2. As to the second question Case 75/63 (Hoekstra, née Unger, Rec. A — This question does not require a 1964, pp. 351 et seq.), where Regulation reply unless the Court considers that the No 3 was declared applicable to a per answer to the first question is in the son who went to another Member affirmative. State simply to stay with relations. B — In the present case it is certain (e) Article 29 of the Regulation covers that the worker concerned cannot be cases where the worker is the victim of regarded as a frontier worker within an industrial accident in the territory of the meaning of Regulation No 36/63 a Member State other than the State

JUDGMENT OF 11. 3. 1965—CASE 31/64

Grounds of judgment

The Court has been properly requested to give a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Maastricht.

I — On the first question

The Court is requested by the first question to rule whether the first para­ graph of Article 52 of Regulation No 3 is applicable before the bilateral agreement referred in the second paragraph of that Article has been con­ cluded between the Member States concerned.

The provisions of the first paragraph of Article 52 are worded in peremptory terms.

SOCIALE VOORZORG v BERTHOLET

Accordingly the first question asked by the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Maastricht, must be answered in the affirmative.

II — On the second question

By the second question the Court is requested to rule whether the first para­ graph of Article 52 of Regulation No 3 is applicable where a traffic accident causing injury has occurred in the territory of a Member State which the injured worker whose residence and place of employment are both situated in the territory of another Member State must cross.

1. A restriction of the field of application of Article 52 ratione personae cannot be construed from the wording of the provision itself.

Indeed, according to the wording of that provision, it is only necessary for the person concerned to be 'in receipt of benefit under the legislation of one Member State, in respect of an injury sustained in the territory of another Member State' and to be 'entitled to claim compensation for that injury from a third party in the latter State's territory'.

Article 52 applies where the injured party has received 'benefit' under the legislation of a Member State.

Article 1 (s) of Regulation No 3 gives a general definition of the term 'benefits'.

Article 2 (1) refers to a series of specific benefits, governed by national legislation, to which the Regulation applies should the occasion arise.

In these circumstances Article 52 must be regarded as being applicable, since under the legislation of a Member State the person in question has received benefit in accordance with one of the headings listed in Article 2 (1) men­ tioned above.

Consequently the second question asked by the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Maastricht, must be answered in the affirmative.

III —Costs

1. The provisions of the first paragraph of Article 52 of Regulation No 3 of the Council of the EEC concerning social security for migrant workers (Official Journal of 16 December 1958, pp. 561 et seq.) are applicable even before a bilateral agreement, as referred to in the second paragraph of that Article, has been concluded between the Member States concerned;

2. These provisions are applicable where a worker who, under the legis­ lation of one Member State, is in receipt of one of the benefits mentioned in Article 2 of Regulation No 3 in respect of an injury sustained in the territory of another Member State is entitled to claim compensation for that injury from a third party in the latter State's territory; and holds:

3. It is for the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Maastricht, to decide upon the costs of the present proceedings.

Hammes Donner Lecourt

Delvaux Trabucchi Strauß Monaco

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 11 March 1965.