C-9/67

2. Freemovementof persons—Migrantworkers—Insurance—Implementation of Communityrules—Respectfor therightstowhichrecipientsareentitled undernationallegislation

3. Freemovementof persons—Migrantworkers—Old-ageanddeath(pensions) insurance—Simultaneouspaymentof pensionsnotobligatory (RegulationNo3,Article28)

1.Cf.paragraph3,summary,Case2/67 privethepersonsconcernedofthe ([1967]E.C.R.). benefitofpartofthelegislationof aMemberState. 2.Sincethesystemofsocialsecurity Cf.paragraph1,summary,Case formigrantworkersaimsatconfer­ 46/66,(Rec.1966,p.616). ringonmigrantworkerstheadvan­ tagescorrespondingtotheirvarious 3.Thereisnogeneralobligationin periodsofwork,itmaynot,inthe Communitylawrequiringbeneficia­ absenceofanexpressexceptionin riestoclaimthesimultaneouspay­ conformitywiththeobjectivesof mentofthevariouspensionsto theTreaty,beappliedsoastode- whichtheyareentided.

InCase9/67

ReferencetotheCourtofJusticeunderArticle177oftheEECTreatyby theCourd'Appel,Paris,forapreliminaryrulingintheactionpendingbefore thatcourtbetween

KurtColditz

composedof:Ch.L.Hammes,President,A.TrabucchiandR.Monaco, PresidentsofChambers,L.Delvaux,A.M.Donner,R.Lecourt(Rapporteur) andW.Strauß,Judges,

Advocate-General:K.Roemer Registrar:A.Van Houtte

givesthefollowing

JUDGMENT

Issuesoffactandoflaw

I — Facts and procedure Colditzhadnotyetcompletedthemini­ mumcontributionperiodconferring MrKurtColditzwasinsuredfirstin entitlementtoapension.Thispension GermanyandtheninFrance. wascalculated,takingintoaccountthe InJune1962,whenhebecame65years GermanandFrenchinsuranceperiods, old,heclaimedpaymentfromtheGer­ onthebasisof150insurancequarters. mansocialsecurityinstitutionofhisold- MrColditzhowevercontinuedtowork agepension. inFrancewherehethusobtainedin­ Sincehehadcompletedatotalof150 creasedpensionrightsundertheFrench quartersofinsurance(100inGermany system.Heceasedworkinthatcountry and50inFrance),heobtainedfromthe on1April1965. Germaninstitution,onthebasisofthe Hemadeacomplaintagainstthedeci­ Communityregulations,apensioncal­ sionoftheCaisseFrançaisecontinuing culatedprorataat100/150from1 toseekhisFrenchpensionnotfromthe May1962. dateofpaymentoftheGermanpension, TheCaisseFrancaised'Assurance butonlyfromthedatewhenheactually VieillessedesTravailleursSalariésde ceasedworkinFrance,thatistosay, Paris(theFrenchOld-AgeInsurance 1April1965,bywhichtimethetotal FundforWage-Earners,Paris),having ofhisinsuranceperiodswasthusin­ beenadvisedofMrColditz'sclaim creasedby11additionalFrenchinsur­ againsttheGermaninstitution,bydeci­ ancequarters. sionnotifiedon14May1964onits Those61quartersofactivityinFrance owninitiativepaidtheFrenchpension wouldthenhaveentitledhimtoapen­ asfrom1July1962,althoughMr sioninthatcountrywithoutresortingto

theaggregationoftheperiodssincethe effectfromthedateofthefirstactual minimuminsuranceperiodtherewas claimaddressedtooneofthoseinstitu­ 60quarters. tions'. Byadecisiongivenon22November Thejudgmentinquestionwastrans­ 1965theCommissiondePremiere mittedfromregistrytoregistryand InstanceduContentieuxdelaSécurité enteredintheCourtRegisteron6 SocialeetdelaMutualitéSooialeAgri­ March1967. coledeParisrejectedhiscomplaint PursuanttoArticle20oftheProtocol againstthedecisionoftheCaisse ontheStatuteoftheCourttheparties RegionaledeVieillessedesTravailleurs totheproceedingsbeforetheCour SalariésdeParis.Helodgedanappeal d'Appel,Paris,theCounciloftheEEC, againstthisdecisionwiththeCour theCommissionoftheEECandthe d'Appel,Paris.Insupportofitsargu­ MemberStateswereinvitedtosubmit ment,theCaisseRégionalereliedon theirobservations. theprovisionsoftheCommunityregula­ OnlytheCommissionlodgedawritten tions.Fromthoseitderivedgrounds statementofcase. fortheconclusionthatinthecaseof Atthehearingon14June1967the pensionsofworkerscomingundervari­ observationsoftheCommissionandthe ousnationalinstitutionspaymentofthe reasonedoralopinionoftheAdvocate- variouspensionspaidbyeachinstitution Generalwereheard. mustnecessarilybemadesimultaneous- ly. Ontheotherhand,accordingtothe II — Observations submitted insuredperson,Communitylawdoes under Article 20 of notprohibitarequestthatpaymentof the Statute oneormoreofthemshallbepostponed. Therebeingnoprohibition,itisthere­ TheCommissionstatedfirstofallthat foreopentothepersonconcerned,ifhe underthevariousnationallawsinsured hasaninterestinsodoing,torequest personsareentitledtopostponetheir thatthepaymentofoneormorepen­ claimsforpensionsandtoderiveadvan­ sionsshouldbepostponedsincethe tagesfromsodoing.Thoselawsare factthathewascontinuingtoworkin basedonthefactthatold-agedoesnot Franceinthiscaseconferredonhim affectindividualsuniformly.Theyreflect additionalrightsforthepurposesof amodernconceptofold-agewhichno thepaymentoftherelevantpension. longerregardstheageconferringentitle­ InthosecircumstancestheCourd'Appel menttoapensionasanimperativeand Paris,byjudgmentof28January1967, uniformrequirementbutasonetobe decidedtoputtotheCourtofJustice adaptedintermsoftheindividual's 'thefollowingpreliminaryquestioncon­ physicalconditionandcapacities. cerningthedatefromwhichthevarious TheCommissionthenrecalledthatthe nationalinstitutionsmustpaythepen­ Courd'Appel,Parisonthebasisofthe sionswhichareduefromthem:togive findingthatRegulationNo3nowhere arulingastowhethertheprovisionsof prohibitsthesuccessivepaymentof Article28ofRegulationNo3andof variouspensions,'reliesontheprovi­ Articles30to36and83ofRegulation sionsofArticle28(1)(e)and(f)toask No4mustbeinterpretedtomeanthat whethersimultaneouspaymentisobliga­ apartfromthespecialcasesprovided toryapartfromthiscase'.TheCour forbyArticle28(1)(e)and(f)aclaim d'Appel,Paris,'deliberatelypreferredto forpaymentofapensionmustneces­ place.theproblemoutsidethecontext sarilybemetsimultaneouslybyeach ofthecasesprovidedforinsubpara­ ofthenationalinstitutionssoastotake graphs(e)and(f)andtoaskwhether

thecasesofsuccessivepaymentofpen­ to1965intheeventofsuccessivepay­ sionswhichareexpresslyprovidedfor mentandiftheFrenchpensionhad thereinareexhaustive,orwhethermen­ notbeenpaid.Thepersonconcerned tioningthosecasesimpliesacontrario wouldthushavereceivedwhatwasdue thatsimultaneouspaymentisobligatory tohimforaseriesof100quarters inothercases'. completedexclusivelyinGermany. AccordingtotheCommission,aliteral However,from1965theGerman interpretationofArticle28tends'rather' institutionwouldhavecalculatedpro totheconclusionthatsimultaneouspay­ rataonthebasisof161quarters mentisobligatory.Nevertheless,ifthis accordingtotheratioof100/161. provisionissetinthecontextofArticles Thus,takingaccountofthelegislation 48to51oftheTreaty,itisnecessary ofthetwoMemberStatesinquestion 'rather'toaskoneselfwhatwouldbethe andoftheaggregateclaimsofthe consequencesofsimultaneouspayment personconcerned,themethodofcal­ andsuccessivepaymentontheappli­ culatingtheGermanpensionwould cant'srights.Itisnecessary'tothis differaccordingtowhethertheFrench endtoconsiderthem,bothwithregard pensionwerepaidsimultaneouslyor totheamountofthepension — forwhich successively.However,withorwithout theapplicantrequeststhepostponement calculationprorata,andwith150or ofpayment—(inthisinstancethe 161quarters,theamountoftheGerman Frenchpension)andwithregardtoall pensionwouldfoeconstantandequal theadvantagestowhichheisentitled tothatobtainedbydirectcalculation undereachofthetwosystemsofpay­ ofaninsuranceperiodof100quarters mentaccordingtotheCommunity completedinGermany. regulations'. SincetheGermanpensionisconstant, WithregardtotheFrenchpension, itmayappearincasessuchasthepre­ throughsimultaneouspayment(the sent'inequitabletodeprivetheperson practiceadoptedinthisinstancebythe concerned,byvirtueoftheCommunity CaisseFrançaise)thepersonconcerned regulations,oftherighttoclaimpost­ receivedin1962onethirdoftheFrench ponementofthepaymentofthepension pensioncalculatedproratabymeans whichhereceivesunderFrenchlegisla­ ofaggregationunderArticle27,onthe tion'. basisof50quarterscompletedin Thepersonconcernedhoweverobtains France.Thispaymentisfinal,withno anadvantagesincefor11quartershe possibilityofalterationbutfrom1962 receivespartofthepensionwhilstthe to1965thepersonconcernedreceived parttobereceivedafterhisretirement thepensionwhilestillcontinuingto continuestoincrease.Neverthelessto contribute. obtainthisadvantage,hemusttem­ Ontheotherhandthesuccessivepay­ porarilyrenouncetheFrenchpartand mentofpensionswouldhavemadeit paycontributionsinFrance.Sincewith possibleforthepersonconcernedto 161insurancequartershedoesnot obtainfrom1965alargerFrenchpen­ receiveanymoreforthe100quarters sion(61/161).Inthiscasehewould completedunderGermanlegislation nothavereceivedtheFrenchpension thanwith150insurancequarters,itis from1962to1965'butwouldclearly thereforepurelyontheFrenchpart havebeen'boundtopaycontributions. thathe'speculates'.Hecannotthere­ Inthecaseofsimultaneouspayment forebecriticizedfor'speculating'since theGermaninstitutionwouldhavecal­ heisentitledtodosounderFrench culatedthepensionproratain1962on legislationandthe'speculation'affects thebasisof150quarters.Itwouldnot onlytheamountoftheFrenchpension. havebeencalculatedproratafrom1962 InacaselikethepresenttheCom-

Groundsofjudgment

Byajudgmentdated28January1967whicharrivedattheRegistryofthe CourtofJusticeon6March1967,theCourd'Appel,Paris,(18thChamber) referredunderArticle177oftheEECTreaty'thefollowingpreliminary questionconcerningthedatefromwhichthevariousnationalinstitutions mustpaythepensionswhichareduefromthem'andaskedtheCourtto: 'rulewhethertheprovisionsofArticle28ofRegulationNo3andofArticles 30to36and83ofRegulationNo4mustbeinterpretedtomeanthatapart fromthespecialcasesprovidedforbyArticle28(1)(e)and(f)aclaimfora pensionmustnecessarilybemetsimultaneouslybyeachofthenationalin­ stitutionssoastotakeeffectfromthedateofthefirstactualclaimaddressed tooneofthoseinstitutions'.

Thesaidquestionconcernsthelegalpositionofaninsuredpersonwho continuestoworkandtopaycontributionswithaviewtoacquiringrightsto ahigherpensionandagainstwhichthenationalinstitutionresponsiblefor paymentofthesaidpensioninvokesonthebasisofArticles27and28of

JUDGMENTOF5.7.1967— CASE9/67

RegulationNo3therightonitsowninitiativetomakeapaymentofthe pensiononthesamedatewhentheinsuredpersonobtainsthepaymentof anotherpensioninanotherMemberState.

Sincethesolutiontothisquestionisnotexpresslygovernedbytheregu­ lationsoftheCouncilconcerningsocialsecurityformigrantworkers,itcan onlyemergefromtheinterpretationofthoseregulationsinthelightofthe objectivesoftheprovisionsoftheTreaty(Articles48to51)onthebasisof whichthoseregulationswereadopted.

aretobeeffectedandnotthecontextinwhichthesaidproceduremustbe applied.Thisisaspecialprocedureandonewhichrelatestosuchcasesas mayariseunderArticle28(1)(e)ofRegulationNo3.

Theexceptionalnatureofthosesituationsconfirmsthefactthatsimultaneous paymentisnotthegeneralruleunderRegulationNo3.

Costs

ThecostsincurredbytheCommissionoftheEEC,whichsubmittedobserva­ tionstotheCourt,arenotrecoverable.Astheseproceedingsare,insofaras thepartiestothemainactionareconcerned,inthenatureofastepinthe actionpendingbeforetheCourd'Appel,Paris,thedecisiononcostsisa matterforthatcourt.

Onthosegrounds,

Uponreadingthepleadings; UponhearingthereportoftheJudge-Rapporteur; UponhearingtheoralobservationsoftheCommissionoftheEEC; UponhearingtheopinionoftheAdvocate-General; HavingregardtotheTreatyinstitutingtheEEC,especiallyArticles48to51 and177; HavingregardtotheProtocolontheStatuteoftheCourtofJusticeofthe EEC,especiallyArticle20; HavingregardtoRegulationNo3oftheCounciloftheEECconcerning socialsecurityformigrantworkers,especiallyArticles27and28; HavingregardtoRegulationNo4oftheCounciloftheEECconcerning socialsecurityformigrantworkers,especiallyArticles30to36and83; HavingregardtotheRulesofProcedureoftheCourtofJusticeofthe EuropeanCommunities,

Delvaux Donner Lecourt Strauß

DeliveredinopencourtinLuxembourgon5July1967.

A.Van Houtte Ch.L.Hammes Registrar President

OPINIONOFMRADVOCATE-GENERALROEMER

DELIVEREDON14JUNE19671

MrPresident, tunitytobecomeentitledtoadditional Membersof theCourt, benefitsunderFrenchlaw. TheFrenchsocialsecurityfund(the Inthecasereferredforapreliminary CaisseRégionaleVieillessedesTravail­ rulingwhichIhavetodiscusstoday, leursSalariésdeParis),havingreceived thesubjectisagainaquestioncon­ notificationfromtheGermansocialin­ cerningmigrantworkers'rightsto suranceinstitution,on14May1964 socialsecurity. onitsowninitiativeissuedadecisionto Thefollowingfactsgaverisetothe paytheFrenchold-agepension,totake problem: effectfrom1July1962,despitethe Theplaintiffinthemainactionbefore repeatedexpressprotestsoftheplain­ aFrenchcourt(aGermancitizen)was tiff.