C-44/65
ECLI:EU:C:1965:122
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61965CJ0044
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT <ap note>1</ap note> 9 DECEMBER 1965
Hessische Knappschaft <ap note>2</ap note> v Maison Singer et Fils
(Reference for a preliminary ruling by
the Cour d'appel, Colmar)
Case 44/65
S ummary
1. Procedure — Preliminary ruling — Parties to the main action — Rights
(EEC Treaty, Article 177)
2. Free movement of persons — Workers within the meaning of Regulation No 3
of the Council of the EEC — Concept
3. Free movement of persons Workers Accident insurance — Benefits granted — —
under the legislation of a Member State Injury sustained in the territory of —
another Member State — Injury sustained before the entry into force of Regula tion No 3 of the Council of the EEC — Institutions liable for payment — Rights with regard to a third party liable for compensation — Action for reimburse
ment — Admissibility (Regulation No 3 of the Council of the EEC, Article 52 and 53 (3))
1. Since the right to determine the purpose of their employment.
questions to be brought before the Cf. paragraph 1, summary in Case Court devolves upon the court or 75/63 Rec. 1964, p. 351. tribunal of the Member State alone, 3. Article 52 of Regulation No 3 the parties may not change their the institu empowers social security tenor or have them declared to be Member State to tions of a bring without purpose. laid down an action, on conditions
2. The concept of worker under Regula therein, for the reimbursement of
tion No 3 is not limited solely to benefits granted in consequence of
migrant workers stricto sensu or solely an accident even if it occurred before to workers required to move for the 1 January 1959.
In Case 44/65
Reference to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Première Chambre Civile (First Civil Chamber) of the Cour d'Appel, Colmar, for a preliminary ruling in the action pending before that court betwe n:
1 — Language of the Case: French. 2 — CMLR.
JUDGMENT OF 9. 12. 1965 — CASE 44/65
HESSISCHE KNAPPSCHAFT Weilburg/Lahn (Germany), ,
plaintiff, and
MAISON SINGER ET FILS Erstein (France), ,
defendant,
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, p. 561 et seq.),
THE COURT
composed of: Ch. L. Hammes, President, W. Strauß (Rapporteur), President of Chamber, A. M. Donner, R. Lecourt and R. Monaco, Judges.
Advocate-Gneral: J. Gand Registra: A. Van Houtte
gives the following
JUDGMENT
Issues of fact and of law
I — Questions submitted to Republic of Germany of 15 the Court February 1963 seems to recom
mend, applies to any worker Presi By a letter of 1 June 1965, the affiliated to a social security scheme dent of the First Civil Chamber of the of one of the six Member any Cour d'Appel, Colmar, transmitted to States of the European Economic the Court of Justice of the European if is Community, even he not a Communities a decision of the said migrant worker and even if the Chamber of the same date, by which accident which he suffered and a preliminary ruling was requested of which gave rise to the payment of the Court on the following questions: social benefits did not security (1) Whether Article 52 of Regulation occur either during or arising out
No 3 applies to migrant of his work exclusively workers who are, or at the time (2) If so, whether in these circumstances of the event have been, employed the social security agencies in each in one of the six countries of the of the six Member States are Community, or whether this provi entitled to claim, as from 1 January sion, as at least the circular on 1959, when Regulation No 3 enter
social security of the Federal ed into force, in the other such
HESSISCHE KNAPPSCHAFT v SINGER
States the reimbursement of the on 1 January 1959, that is to say, benefits which they have paid to after the accident in question, it a person insured toy them who has cannot be applicable in this case.
suffered an accident in the territory The Hessische Knappschaft brought an of that other State before 1 January appeal against this judgment before 1959 for which he can claim com Cour the d'appel, Colmar. pensation from a third party under the civil law of that State, whereas, under Article 52 of Regulation No II — Procedure 3, each Member State of the EEC is obliged to recognize, as if result Under Article 20 of the Protocol on
ing from its own laws, substitutions the Statute of the Court of Justice of
based on the national legislations Hessische Knappschaft, the EEC, the of the other Member States and Maison Singer et Fils and the Com
automatically having or having had mission of the EEC submitted written
effect from the entry into force of observations. Regulation No 3, that is to say, The 12 October hearing took place on
from 1 January 1959 (Article 56 1965. Regulation
of No 3, as amended The Advocate-General delivered his 4).'
by Article 88 of Regulation No opinion on 4 November 1965. It emerges from the file that this deci
sion is based on the following facts: On 24 September 1957, Mr Gassner, III — Observations submit
German holi Article 20 a national spending his ted under
days in France, was killed as a result of the Protocol on the
of a collision between his motorcycle Statute of the Court of
and a cattle truck belonging to Maison Justice of the EEC Singer et Fils and driven by Mr Stadelweiser, an agent of 'that firm. The observations submitted in accord
In its capacity securityas a social ance with Article 20 of the Protocol on agency the Hessische Knappschaft paid the Statute of the Court of Justice of
to the successors of the victim benefits the EEC may be summarized as
for which it claimed repayment, in parti folows:
cular from Maison Singer, by virtue
of a substitution for the rights of the 1. Observations of the Hessische
said which takes place under Knappschaft successors, German legislation and Article 52 of A — With regard to the first question Regulation No 3. In a judgment of 4 October 1963, the It follows from the judgments given by Chambre Civile of the Tribunal de the Court in the cases of Bertholet Grande Instance, Strasbourg, dismissed (31/64) and Koster (nee Van Dijk) the action brought against Maison Singer (33/64) that Article 52 of Regulation et Fils on the grounds: No 3 is applicable to cases such as the —
that Regulation No 3 concerns present one.
migrant workers, whereas the victim, B — With regard to the second question according to the statements of the
Hessische Knappschaft itself, was on The said Article 52 states that the
holiday in France when he suffered substitution in question 'shall be
by Member State; the recognized'
the accident: each
—
and that in any case since me said fact that in the French version the
Regulation only entered into force verb is in the present and not in the
JUDGMENT OF 9. 12. 1965 — CASE 44/65
('reconnaît' future tense not 'reconnaîtra') — The concept of 'migrant workers
implies that such recognition applies refers to workers required to move
withimmediate, not merely future effect. for the purpose of their employment.
Moreover, Article 53 (2) of Regulation —
Consequently, in so far as Article No 3 provides expressly that, subject 52 of Regulation No 3 is to be to the provisions of paragraph (1) of this applied to cases such as the present
Article, benefit shall be payable under one, it is not a measure 'necessary this Regulation 'even if it relates to an to provide freedom of movement for event before the date on which it comes workers'.
into force'. Furthermore, Regulation No 3 is
It must therefore be admitted 'that, in vitiated by an internal contradiction, the case provided for by Article 52, the as its heading and most of its provisions
claim arising from the substitution are directed to migrant workers stricto
'must be recognized as valid in the .... sensu, whilst in certain other aspects
State where it existed .... as from 1 it exceeds that limitation. January 1959'. In conclusion the request of the Cour In any case, the Hessische Knappschaft d'Appeal, Colmar, for a preliminary has the right to the payment of the ruling is without purpose.
benefits disbursed by it as from 1 B — On the second question January
By reason of the submission set out at 2. Observations of Maison Singer et Fils A, this question is only considered as an alternative A — On the first question point.
Regulations Nos 3 and 4 of the Council Maison Singer admits that the said of the EEC contain no additional pro
case-law of the Court renders Article visions relating to the application in 52 of Regulation No 3 applicable in time of Article 52 of Regulation No 3. in question, but In particular, Article 53 Regula cases similar to the one of that
it relies on Article 184 of the EEC tion, dealing only with the relationship Treaty to stress the inapplicability of between the institution and the insured, Article 52, so construed. is not such a provision.
(a) It is claimed that this submission is In these circumstances, recourse must
admissible Article 184; in under parti be had to the general principles of 'party' cular, Maison Singer is to 'pro law. These principles point to a differ-
ceedings in which a regulation of the ence as regards the relationship between Council or of the Commission is in the social security institution and the issue'. insured, on the one hand, and the
(b) The submission is also well-founded: person responsible for the accident on
in fact, by adopting the provision in dis the other. The former relationship 'is pute, the Council of the EEC acted to be construed, with regard to the
ultra vires by exceeding the powers con benefits due for a social security risk
ferred upon it by Article 51 of the which has materialized, as a situation
EEC Treaty: continuing after the risk has material — The criteria for the 'freedom of ized'; it is in fact generally admitted
movement for workers', found in that the new law—such as is the case
Article 48 of the said Treaty, 'are with Regulation No 3—takes effect
limited ... in the concept of a move immediately in such situations. ment of workers in connexion with The latter, on the other hand, relates
their employment or determined by to the civil liability of the persons res
a cause, immediate, even if not aris ponsible for the accident; 'it is no longer ing out of their employment'. a risk which has materialized which is
HESSISCHE KNAPPSCHAFT v SINGER
in question here but indeed an 3. Observations of the Commission of giving rise to 'To the EEC sub act obligations'.
ject the person responsible for an
accident prior to the law to A — On the first question occurring provisions relating to an action brought This question is in fact divided into under a law subsequent to the accident two parts: would be to give the new law retro
— Does Article 52 of Regulation No 3 active effect', since 'the person respon
apply even to workers who are not sible for an accident has a vested right migrant workers? in having the consequences of that — Does this provision apply even if the accident assessed in accordance with the accident in question did not occur law in force at the date of the accident'. during or arising out of employ
In conclusion, Article 52 must not be ment? applied to accidents occurring before After quoting and commenting on the 1 January 1959. judgments of the Court in Cases 75/63 C — Conclusions (Hoekstra (née Unger)), 31/64
Maison Singer et Fils contends that the (Bertholet) and 33/64 (Koster (nee Van Court Dijk)), the Commission submits that the should: Court has already answered these 1. Declare that Maison Singer et Fils questions in the affirmative. are entitled, by virtue of Articles 173 and 184 of the Treaty establishing B — On the second question the European Economic Community, to claim that Article 52 of Regula Article 52 applies even when an accident tion No 3 concerning social security has occurred before the entry into force for migrant workers does not apply; of Regulation No 3. In fact, the draft 2. Declare that this submission is well ing of that Article is incompatible with founded and rule that Article 52 of any limitation ratione temporis; in parti
Regulation No 3 is consequently in- cular, it does not lay down any condi applicable: tion with regard to the date when the 'benefits' 3. Consequently rule that the two were paid.
questions in the decision of the Cour Moreover, it emerges from Article 53 d'Appel, Colmar, of 1 June 1965 (3) of Regulation No 3 that in cases
requesting an interpretation are comparable with the present one the
without purpose; institutions were obliged, by 1 January 4. Alternatively, with regard to the 1959 at the latest, to grant the injured second question, rule that Article 52 person payment of the 'benefits. 'It of Regulation No 3 does not apply therefore seems illogical that the right to to an accident occurring before 1 claim compensation from a third party January 1959; for the injury by virtue of a substitution 5. Give an appropriate ruling as to the for the rights of the injured person
costs. should not be recognized in return'.
Grounds of judgment
I — On the first question
By the first question the Court is asked to rule whether Article 52 of Regula tion No 3 applies only to migrant workers who have, or had at the time of
the accident, employment in one of the six countries of the Community, or
JUDGMENT OF 9. 12. 1965 — CASE 44/65
whether it applies to any worker affiliated to a social security scheme of one of those Member States, even if he is not a migrant worker and even if the accident suffered which gave rise to the disbursement of social security pay
ments took place neither during nor arising out of his employment.
In its judgment in Case 33/64 of 11 March 1965 (reference for a preliminary
ruling by the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Assen, [1965] ECR) the Court, in interpreting the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 52, ruled that:
'These provisions are applicable where a worker who, under the legislation of one Member State, is in receipt of one of the benefits mentioned in Article 2 of Regulation No 3 in injury sustained in the territory of respect of an
another Member State, such injury is connected with his whether or not
work, is entitled to compensation for that injury from a third party in the latter State's territory'.
In view of the facts of the present case, it must be recalled that Article 52 legis applies to the case of any person who is in receipt of benefit under the
lation of one Member State whether it be the worker himself or his successors.
Whilst the defendant in the main action admits that this interpretation of
Regulation No 3 is well founded, it considers that it is incompatible with
Article 51 of the EEC Treaty, especially as under that provision the Council is only entitled to make rules governing the situation of migrant workers
stricto sensu.
Consequently it claims before the Court, by virtue of Articles 173 and 185 of the said Treaty, that Article 52 of Regulation No 3 does not apply, and con
tends that the request for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d'Appel, Colmar, should be declared to be without purpose.
Under Article 177 of the Treaty it is for the court or tribunal of a Member State, and not the parties to the main action, to bring a matter before the Court of Justice.
Since the right to determine the questions to be brought before the Court thus devolves upon the court or tribunal of the Member State alone, the
parties may not change their tenor or have them declared to be without pur pose. Consequently the Court of Justice cannot be compelled at the request of a party to entertain a question when the initiative for referring it to the Court pertains not to the parties but to the court or tribunal of the Member State itself, or to entertain within the particular framework of Article 177 a
claim based primarily on Article 184.
HESSISCHE KNAPPSCHAFT v SINGER
Besides, the contrary view fails to recognize that the authors of Article 177 intended to establish direct cooperation between the Court of Justice and the courts and tribunals of the Member States by way of a non-contentious pro
cedure of the parties, who are merely invited to be excluding any initiative heard in the course of that procedure. The claim of Maison Singer et Fils to have the Colmar court's request for a preliminary ruling declared to be with
out purpose must therefore be rejected.
Moreover, the argument of the plaintift in the main action that Regulation No 3 and in particular Article 52 thereof are incompatible with the limitations prescribed by Article 51 of the Treaty cannot be accepted.
Under Article 51 of the Treaty, the Council 'shall . . . adopt such measures
in the field of social security as are necessary to provide freedom of move
'Workers' ment for workers'. Article 51 is included in the Chapter entitled and situated in Tide III ('Free movement of persons, services and capital') in Part Two of the Treaty ('Foundations of the Community'). The establish
ment of as complete freedom of movement for workers as possible, which 'foundations' thus forms part of the of the Community, therefore constitutes the ultimate objective of Article 51 and thereby conditions the exercise of the
power which it confers upon the Council.
'worker' It would not be in conformity with that spirit to limit the concept of
solely to migrant workers stricto sensu or solely to workers required to move for the purpose of their employment. Nothing in Article 51 imposes such
distinctions, which would in any case tend to make the application of the
rules in question impracticable.
On the other hand, the system adopted by Regulation No 3, which consists in abolishing as far as possible the territorial limitations on the application of the different social security schemes, certainly corresponds to the objectives
of Article 51 of the Treaty.
II — On the second question
In its second question, the Cour d'Appel, Colmar, asks the Court to rule
whether, under Article 52 of Regulation No 3, the social security institutions of a Member State are entitled to bring an action, on the conditions laid down therein, for the reimbursement of benefits granted in consequence of
an accident occurring before 1 January 1959. Under Article 88 (1) of Regu-
JUDGMENT OF 9. 12. 1965 — CASE 44/65
lation No 4 of the Council of the EEC, Regulation No 3 entered into force on 1 January 1959. The said Regulation No 3 was incapable of giving rise, before 1 January 1959, to the rights and duties referred to therein. But
events occurring before that date may, once the Regulation has entered into
force, give rise to those rights and duties. In the absence of an express pro
vision to the contrary, its rules must be regarded as taking effect as soon as
into force, inasmuch they determine in the present legal con they enter as
sequences of actions in the past. Article 52 of Regulation No 3 in no way modifies the conditions governing the creation and the limits of extra-
contractual liability, which remains subject solely to national law. It is limited to substituting the institution liable for payment for the beneficiary in any claims which he may have against the third party liable, in other words, to substituting a new claimant for the old.
Moreover, the substitution provided for in Article 52 in favour of the national social security institutions constitutes the logical and fair counterpart to the Commu extension of the obligations of the said institutions throughout the
nity. To this end, Article 53 (3) of Regulation No 3 provides that benefit shall be payable even if it relates to an event occurring before the date on
which it entered into force. The same effect with regard to time should thus be admitted in connexion with the application of Article 52.
The second question of the Cour d'Appel, Colmar, should thus be answered in the affirmative.
III — Costs
The costs incurred by the Commission of the EEC, which submitted obser
vations to the Court, are not recoverable, and as these proceedings are, in so far as the parties to the main action are concerned, in the nature of a
step in the action pending before the Cour d'Appel, Colmar, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.
On those grounds,
Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur; Upon hearing the observations of the Commission of the EEC and the
parties to the main action; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General;
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the EEC, especially Article 177;
HESSISCHE KNAPPSCHAFT v SINGER
Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, especially Article 20; Having regard to Regulation No 3 of the Council of the EEC concerning social security for migrant workers (Official Journal of 16 December 1958, p. 561 et seq.), especially Articles 52 and 53; implement Having regard to Regulation No 4 of the Council of the EEC on ing procedures and supplementary provisions in respect of Regulation No 3 concerning social security for migrant workers (Official Journal of 16 December 1958, p. 597 et seq.), especially Article 88;
Having regard to the judgment of the Court of 11 March 1965 in Case 33/64; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the
European Communities;
THE COURT
in answer to the questions referred toit by the First Civil Chamber of the Cour d'Appel, Colmar, by a decision of the said Chamber of 1 June 1965, hereby rules:
I. The reply to the first question of the Cour d'Appel, Colmar, follows from the judgment of the Court of 11 March 1965 in Case 33/64;
2. Article 52 of Regulation No 3 of the Council of the EEC concerning in social security for migrant workers entitles the social security stitutions of a Member State to bring an action, under the conditions
laid down therein, for the reimbursement of benefit paid by them in respect of an accident occurring before I January 1959;
3. The decision on the costs of these proceedings is a matter for the
Cour d'Appel, Colmar.
Hammes Strauß Dormer
Lecourt Monaco
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 9 December 1965.
A. Van Houtte Ch. L. Hammes Registrar President