C-6/67
ECLI:EU:C:1967:29
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61967CJ0006
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 5 JULY 1967
Teresa Pace (nee Guerra)
v Institut National d'Assurance Maladie-Invalidité
(Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Belgian Conseil d'État)
Case 6/67
Summary
Free movement of persons — Migrant workers — Insurance — Languages —
Authorities of Member States within the meaning of Article 45 (4) of Regulation No 3 National courts to be included therein —
The courts of a Member State having tion No 3, which may not reject claims, jurisdiction in social security matters are or other documents submitted to them, included amongst the authorities within on the grounds 'that they are written in an the meaning of Article 45 (4) of Regula- officiallanguage of another Member State.
In Case 6/67
Reference to the Court of Justice under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by IIIrd Chamber, Section d'Administration, of the Belgian Conseil d'État for a
preliminary ruling in the action pending before that court between
Teresa Pace (née Guerra ), widow of Pietro Pace, residing at Cascina
Mortaio, Leno, Brescia (Italy), plaintiff,
and
Institut National d'Assurance Maladie-Invalidité, 211 avenue de
Tervueren, Brussels 15. defendant,
THE COURT
composed of: A. Trabucchi, President of Chamber, President, R. Monaco, President of Chamber, A. M. Donner (Rapporteur), R. Lecourt and W.
Strauß, Judges,
Advocate-General: J. Gand
Registrar: A. Van Houtte
gives the following 1 — Language of the Case: French.
JUDGMENT OF 5. 7. 1967 — CASE 6/67
JUDGMENT
Issues of fact and of law
I — Facts and procedure referred to in Article 45 of Regulation 3?' No The facts and procedure may foe sum The request for a preliminary ruling marized as follows: Court IIIrd addressed to the by the By an application lodged on 13 January Chamber was received at the Court 1967, the plaintiff instituted proceedings Registry on 8 February 1967. before the Belgian Conseil d'État against The written observations provided for the decision of the Commission d'Appel Article 20 by of the Statute of the en Matière d'Assurance Obligatoire Court were submitted on : contre le Maladie et l'lnvalidité (the 31 March 1967 —
by the defendant, Compulsory Health Insurance Appeals — 12 April 1967 Belgian by the Committee) on 17 November which, Government, 1966, had rejected her claim for a pen — 14 April 1967 by the Commission of sion. the EEC. The said application was drawn up in At 1 June 1967 the hearing on the Italian. Commission of the EEC referred to its According to Article 26 (3) of the written statement. Belgian Law of 23 December 1964, as The Advocate-General delivered his amended by the Law of 15 April 1958, reasoned oral opinion at the hearing on Con concerning the establishment of a 13 Tune 1967. seil d'État, 'individuals may draw up their documents and declarations in the
language of their but this II — Observations submitted choice', choice was restricted to one of the under Article 20 of
three languages in use in Belgium, the Statute of the
Court French, Dutch and German. Regula Nevertheless Article 45 (4) or The observations may be summarized tion No 3 of the Council of the EEC as follows: provides that: The defendant in the main action con
'The institutions and authorities of one siders that an affirmative answer must Member State shall not reject claims, be given to the question put. or other documents submitted to them, Under the terms of Article 1 of Regula on the grounds that they are written tion No 3 the expression 'competent in an official language of another in authority'
shall mean respect of each State.' Member Member State the Minister, Ministers In view of the fact that the said Regula or other equivalent respon authority tion is binding on Belgium, under sible for social con security schemes; Articles 189 and 191 of the Treaty of sequently this expression must be under
IIIrd Chamber Con Rome, the of the stood to refer to the executive authority seil d'État decided by an order of in charge of the social security scheme; 27 1967 follow January to submit the since in legal theory the Conseil d'État
ing preliminary question to the Court forms part of the executive, it must 'be of Justice of the European Com considered to be included in the ex
munities : 'authorities'. pression
'Is the Conseil d'État to fee considered The defendant in the main action also
as one of the institutions and authorities draws attention to Article 43 (b) of
PACE V ASSURANCE MALADIE - INVALIDITÉ
Regulation No 3, which requires the of Regulation No 3, Belgium thought
Administrative Commission to carry out that this Regulation did not constitute
imple all translations relating to the a retreat by comparison with the Con mentation of that Regulation at the vention of 30 April 1948 and that the
request of the competent authorities spirit at least, if not the letter, of the
and agencies of a Member State, and latter was retained.
in particular translations of claims sub The Commission of the EEC bases its
mitted by persons who may be entitled affirmative reply principally on the ratio
to benefit under the Regulation. legis of the Treaty and of the Regula The Belgian Government is of the same tions. opinion because, as the actual provisions The question put is clearly whether
of Regulation No 3 do not provide an courts are referred to by the expressions Regula express answer to the question put, the employed in Article 45 of the
solution to the problem posed must be tion; it merely seeks the interpretation sought elsewhere. of the term 'authorities', since the term 'institution'
(a) On 11 January 1966 the Commission is defined in Article 1 (e) of the EEC submitted to the Council of Regulation No 3 in such a way as to
a proposal for the regulation intended to exclude its application to courts.
replace Regulation No 3 then in force; The Commission takes the view that a
Article 67 of the draft which would re literal interpretation of the expression 'authorities' place the present Article 45 (4) pro does not preclude an affir
vides that: 'The authorities, institutions mative response; it puts forward the
and courts of one Member State shall following arguments: not reject claims, or other documents (a) Regulation No 3 does not expressly 'authorities' submitted tothem, on the grounds that define the term and the
they are written in an official language definition of the term 'competent Member State'. The Govern by Article 1 (d) of authority'
of another given
ment wonders whether there is any point Regulation No 3 is not decisive in in maintaining now that the Conseil resolving whether or not the term 'authorities' d'État may only have applications is applicable to courts.
brought before it in one of the three (b) Literally interpreted, the terms
languages used in Belgium, although this 'autorités', 'Behörden', 'autorità 'autoriteiten' be in the near do have iden argument will precluded and not
future. tical scope in all the Community (b) Regulation Mo 3 was substituted tor languages. Treaty provisions which already pro (c) The nature of the documents refer
vided that migrant workers might use red to by Article 45 (4) (claims) does their own language in court proceed not exclude the interpretation that 'authorities' ings. include courts. Thus Article 31 of the Convention con (d) Article 47 or Regulation No 3, cerning social security concluded on 30 which clearly refers to courts as well
April 1948 by Belgium and Italy pro as to administrative authorities, vided that persons entitled thereunder speaks of 'an authority, institution or
may apply to the agencies, authorities other agency of that State'. It is not impossible to find differ and courts of the contracting countries a certain
in one of the official languages of either ence between Articles 45 and 47 and of those countries. to consider that courts are included Although Article 31 does not appear in having regard to the fact that in Annex D to Regulation No 3, it may Article 47 the expression 'other be it has been agency'
authori considered that, since made no added to
reservation in the course of the draf ting ties and institutions; although this
JUDGMENT OF 5. 7. 1967 — CASE 6/67
argument does have some force, it Community regulations replaced the said must indeed be recognized that the Conventions under Article 5 (a) of expression in question is one which Regulation No 3; Article 6 (2) of the is rarely used to describe courts. said Regulation allowed the Member
(e) The preparatory studies do not make States to continue to apply the provis
it possible to conclude with cer ions of conventions previously concluded tainty that the authors of the Euro by registering them in Annex D to that pean Convention drawn up under Regulation. None of the clauses on the
the aegis of the ECSC intended to use of languages was registered in the
include courts in the scope of the Annex. Mem provisions which were to become It is difficult to imagine chat the
Article 45 (4). ber States concerned intended to with
It appears to emerge from the case-law draw from the migrant workers the en
of the Court that with regard to the joyment of a right which had previously interpretation of Regulations Nos 3 been inten and available to them; such an
4 the literal meaning of the provisions is tion would be contrary to the recitals less important than an endeavour to which the Governments of the Member interpretation European Con arrive at an which con States included in the
forms with the objectives of the Treaty vention.
(judgment in Case No 4/66, Labots An interpretation based on the silence
(nee Hagenbeek)); the decisive argu of the provisions would also be contrary ment in favour of an affirmative reply to the views of the Court on the inter
to the question put to the Court must pretation of Regulations Nos 3 and 4: therefore be based on the fact that the 'In case of doubt, Articles 48 to 51 of
in im clause concerning the use of the the Treaty and measures taken
languages of the contracting parties, plementation thereof must be construed
even in relationships between individuals so as to avoid placing migrant workers
and the courts, has become the accepted in particu an unfavourable position, in international larly security'
style conventions on with regard to social
(judgment in Case Nonnen social security. 92/63, Most of the bilateral Conventions con macher).
cluded between the Member States con The Commission moreover notes that
tained such a clause which was worded the conventions concluded by Member as follows: 'Communications dealing States with third countries often con
with social security submitted under the tain the clause on the use of languages. present Convention to agencies, author Community workers must not 'be placed ities and courts of one of the contracting in an unfavourable position in compar
parties be drawn up in one of the shall ison with the advantages conferred in official languages of one or other of the Community countries on migrant work
contracting parties'. ers from third countries.
Grounds of judgment
When an application drawn up in Italian was brought before it, the Conseil d'État of the Kingdom of Belgium, considering that, according to the relevant rules of national law, only applications written in one of the Kingdom's three official languages are admissible, referred to the Court a preliminary question whether it is to be considered as one of the 'institutions and authorities',
PACE V ASSURANCE MALADIE - INVALIDITÉ
which under Article 45 (4) of Regulation No 3, concerning social security for migrant workers, adopted by the Council of the EEC on 25 September 1958, are from rejecting claims, or other documents submitted to them, precluded
Mem on the grounds that they are written in an official language of another
ber State. The question therefore turns essentially on whether courts must
be included amongst the 'institutions and authorities'
within the meaning of
the said Article 45.
In defining the various terms for the purposes of the implementation of the 'institution' said Regulation, Article 1 thereof defines the terms and 'competent institution' but only gives a definition for the term 'competent authority'
and
does not give one for the expression 'authority'. It is clear from the said
definitions that courts cannot be considered as institutions or competent
institutions or as competent authorities within the special meaning of the said Regulation. Since the term 'authorities' is not defined in the said Article 1, the content of the expression must be sought in the light of the context in which it is found.
'authorities' Neither the term nor the corresponding terms used in the pro
visions of the Regulation in German, Italian or Dutch in principle preclude their application to judicial authorities. It must be considered first and foremost
whether the obligation, which falls on the agencies entrusted with the daily application of legislation concerning social security, to admit claims written in the official language of another Member State also properly falls on the
authorities entrusted with the judicial review of such application, since, ac
cording to the principles of legal protection in all the Member States, this review constitutes a necessary guarantee of administrative action.
Secondly, the bilateral conventions on social security which Regulation No 3 replaced normally included clauses on the use of languages requiring the courts of the contracting states to accept documents drawn up in the official languages of those states. There is nothing to indicate that when the Council and the
Member States replaced those conventions by Regulation No 3, they intended to deprive migrant workers of a right previously accorded them.
This interpretation is in no way contradicted by Article 47 which provides that
any claim, declaration or appeal which should have been submitted within a
specified period to an authority, institution or other agency of that State shall be admissible if it is submitted within the same period to an authority, institu tion or other corresponding agency of another Member State. This provision also refers to courts, as is illustrated by the reference to appeals, but nothing
proves that the said courts must be included amongst the other agencies re-
JUDGMENT OF 5. 7. 1967 — CASE 6/67
ferred to by the Article. On the other hand this expression is little used to describe judicial authorities and probably refers to widely different tribunals, so that the courts referred to by Article 47 must be included in the appellation 'authority' used by this provision, thus confirming that it was the intention of Article 45 to refer to courts by this term.
It follows from the foregoing that a proper interpretation of Article 45 (4) must include the competent national courts in social security matters amongst the authorities to which the provision refers.
Costs
The costs incurred by the Commission of the EEC and by the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium which have submitted observations to the Court are not recoverable. As the 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 Belgian Conseil d'État, 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 oral observations of the Commission of the EEC; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General;
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the EEC, especially Article 177; 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 1, 45 and 47;
Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities,
THE COURT
in answer to the question referred to it for a preliminary ruling by the IIIrd
Chamber, Section d'Administration, of the Belgian Conseil d'État, hereby rules:
I. The courts of a Member State having jurisdiction in social security matters are included amongst the authorities within the meaning of Article 45 of Regulation No 3;
PACE v ASSURANCE MALAD IE - INVALIDITÉ
2. The decision on costs in the present proceedings is a matter for the Belgian Conseil d'État.
Trabucchi Monaco
Donner Lecourt Strauß
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 5 July, 1967.
A. Van Houtte A. Trabucchi Registrar President
OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE-GENERAL GAND 1 DELIVERED ON 13 JUNE 1967
Mr President, of individuals to the three languages in Members of the Court, use in the country, French, Dutch and German. Mr Pace, an Italian, was employed in But Regulation No 3 of the Council the Belgian collieries from 1946 to 1953 concerning social security for migrant
and subsequently returned to his coun workers, which is binding in Belgium farm 191 try of origin where he worked in by virtue of Articles 189 and of
ing. After his death in 1965, the Com follow the Treaty of Rome, includes the mission de Reclamation (the Complaints ing provision in Article 45 (4): 'The Committee), and then the Commission institutions and authorities of one Mem d'Appel en Matière d'Assurance Sociale ber State shall not reject claims, or
contre la Maladie et l'Invalidité (the other documents submitted to them, on Health Insurance Appeals Committee) the grounds that they are written in an
refused to grant a pension to his widow official language of another Member Mrs Pace (nee Guerra), because there State'. was insufficient proof that the death of The Conseil d'État, in application of
the person concerned was due to an the third paragraph of Article 177 of
occupational disease contracted in Bel the Treaty of Rome, refers the interpre gium. tation of this provision to you by an
Mrs Pace, who resided in Brescia, order of 27 January 1967. It asks you in lodged an appeal written in Italian with to give a ruling whether it must be the Belgian Conseil d'État. cluded amongst 'the institutions and That court considered that, from the authorities'
mentioned in Article 45 of
point of view of Belgian legislation Regulation No 3. Since, as the Conseil
alone, such an appeal was inadmissible itself says, it functions in this case as a
as the Law of 23 December 1946, as court, the question raises the more gen
amended by the Law of 15 April 1958 eral point of whether the courts of the
governing the use of languages before six Member States are included in the
the Conseil d'État, restricts the choice terms employed in Article 45. Of course
1 — Translated from the French.