C-22/67
ECLI:EU:C:1967:47
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61967CJ0022
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
JUDGMENTOF30.11.1967—CASE22/67
InCase22/67
ReferencetotheCourtunderArticle177oftheEECTreatybytheSecond CivilChamberoftheFrenchCourdeCassationforapreliminaryrulinginthe actionpendingbeforethatcourtbetween
CaisseRégionaledeSécuritéSocialeduNORD-EST(RegionalSocial SecurityFundforNorth-EastFrance)whoseofficesareinNancy(Meurthe- et-Moselle),
and
RobertGoffart,residingatPont-à-Mousson(France),
ontheinterpretationoftheprovisionsofArticle28(1)(b)and(f)ofChapter 3ofHeadIIIofRegulationNo3oftheEuropeanEconomicCommunity concerningsocialsecurityformigrantworkers,
THECOURT
composedof:R.Lecourt,President,A.M.Donner,PresidentofChamber, A.Trabucchi,R.Monaco(Rapporteur)andJ.MertensdeWilmars,Judges,
Advocate-General:J.Gand Registrar:A.VanHoutte
givesthefollowing
JUDGMENT
Issuesoffactandoflaw
I —Summary of the facts Belgiansystemfrom1April1926to and procedure 31December1931,hehadcompleted 24insurancequarters(6years)inBel On11May1962MrRobertGoffart, gium. bornon30March1897,claimedfrom TheFrenchsocialsecurityinstitution theCaisseRégionaledeSécuritéSociale calculatedforaccountingpurposesa duNord-Est(France)thepaymentof totalpensionbasedon120quartersand hisold-agepension. 40%oftheaverageannualwagein Hehadmaderegularandvalidpay accordancewiththesocialsecuritylaw. mentstoFrenchsocialsecurityfrom1 SinceMrGoffart'saverageannualwage April1931to31March1962andhad amountedto8735.85Frenchfrancsthe thusacquiredatotalof124insurance amountofthispensionwas3494.34 quarters(31years). Frenchfrancsperyear. Ashehadalsobeenaffiliatedtothe MoreovertheFrenchinstitution,inac-
SÉCURITÉSOCIALEDUNORD-ESTvGOFFART
cordancewiththeprovisionsofArticle No3oftheEuropeanEconomicCom 28(1)(to)ofRegulationNo3ofthe munityconcerningsocialsecurityfor EECmadeaproratadeterminationof migrantworkershastheeffectofstat thefractionofhispensionpayableby ingwhetheramigrantworkerwhose itonthebasisof124/148. rightstoanold-agepensionhavebeen TheFrenchtractionthusemergesat calculatedinaccordancewiththelegis 3262.44Frenchfrancs.Followingthe lationoftwoMemberStatesunderthe sameprinciples,theBelgianinstitution provisionsofArticle27(1)(a)and(b) foritspartcalculateditsfractionofthe oftheabove-mentionedRegulationNo pensioncorrespondingtosixinsurance 3buttowhompaymentofthefrac years,thatis8889Belgianfrancson1 tionofthepensionpayablebyoneof June1962,broughtupto9111Belgian themissuspendedisentitledtoobtain francson1August1962. fromthesocialsecurityinstitutionof However,itsuspendedpayment,inpur theotherStateanamountofpension suanceoftheBelgianlegislationwhich calculatedsolelyinaccordancewiththe prohibitspaymentofapensionwhen legislationofthatStateandtakingac therecipientcontinuesingainfulem countoftheinsuranceperiodscom ploymentauthorizedbytheKing'. pletedunderitsrules.' BecauseofthislattercircumstanceMr Acopyof'thisjudgmentwasreceived GoffartconsideredthathisFrenchpen attheCourtRegistryon15June1967. sionshouldbecalculatedonlyinterms Itfollowsfrom'thewordingofArticles oftheinsuranceperiodscompletedin 27and28(1)thatthereferenceto France,onthebasisofArticle28(1) Article27(1)(a)and(b)containedin (f)ofRegulationNo3. thequestionthusputshouldfoeread Asthisclaimwasnotacceptedbythe asareferencetoArticle28(1)(a)and CaisseRégionaledeSécuritéSocialedu (b). Nord-Est,thequestionwasbroughtbe InaccordancewithArticle20ofthe foretheCommissiondePremièreIn ProtocolontheStatuteoftheCourt stanceduContentieuxdelaSécurité annexedtotheEECTreaty,theparties SocialedeNancy,which,byadecision tothemainaction,theCouncilofthe of11March1964,gavearulingin EEC,theCommissionoftheEECand favourofMrGoffart'sapplication. theMemberStateswererequestedto WhentheCaisseRégionaleappealed, submittheirobservationswithinthe theCourd'Appel,Nancy,byajudg periodoftimeindicatedin'thesecond mentof5November1964confirmed paragraphofthatArticle. allthepointsofthedecisionofthe TheCommissionoftheEECandthe CommissiondePremièreInstance. CaisseRégionaledeSécuritéSocialedu TheCaisseRégionaledeSécuritéso Nord-Estsubmittedtheirobservations cialeduNord-EstappealedtotheFrench on16and25August1967respec CourdeCassationagainst'thisdecision tively. bytheCourd'Appel,Nancy. OnhearingthereportoftheJudge- Byajudgmentof27April1967the RapporteurandtheviewsoftheAd SecondCivilChamberoftheFrench vocate-General,theCourtdecidedto CourdeCassationdecidedtosuspend opentheoralprocedurewithoutany judgmentand'beforegivingarulingto preparatoryinquiry. requesttheCourtofJusticeofthe TheCommissionoftheEECandthe EuropeanCommunitiestogiveapre CaisseRégionaledeSécuritéSocialedu liminaryrulingwhether: Nord-Estpresentedoralargumentat the 'theinterpretationtobegiventothe hearingon17October1967. provisionsofArticle28(1)(b)and(f) TheAdvocate-Generaldeliveredhis ofChapter3ofHeadIIIofRegulation opinionon8November1967.
JUDGMENTOF30.11.1967— CASE22/67
II —Observations submit theinstitutionofeachoftheMember ted under Article 20 States(inaccordancewithwhose of the Statute of the legislationtheinsuredpersonhas Court completedtheinsuranceperiods) shall,inaccordancewithitsown A—TheCommissionstatesfirstofall legislation,determinewhetherthe initswrittenobservationsthatthebasic personconcernedsatisfies'thecon questiontoberesolvediswhetherthe ditionsforentidementtothebene word'conditions'appearinginArticle fitsprescribedinthatlegislation'; 28(1)(f)mustbeinterpretedascover —becauseofitsgeneralnaturethis ingonlytheconditionsconferringthe latterexpressiondoesnotimplyany righttoapension,orasapplicableto distinctionbetween'confermentof theconditionsconferringthisrightand theright'and'paymentofbenefit'; totheconditionsofpaymentofthe —liketheotherprovisionsofArticle pension. 28thoseofparagraph(1)(f)should It'maintainsthatinthefirstcaseasa beinterpretedintermsoftheob righttoapensioninBelgiumhadbeen jectivesprescribedbyArticle51of conferredonthepersonconcernedthe theTreaty,asdefinedbytheCourt; provisionsofthesaidsubparagraph(f) —itemergesfromthecase-lawofthe arenotapplicabletohimandtherefore Court(JudgmentinCase100/63) theFrenchinstitutionsarenotentided thattheprovisionsofArticle28are toleaveoutofaccounttheBelgianin onlyapplicableiftheCommunity suranceperiods,despitethefactthatit regulationsdonotpermitcompen hasnotbeenpossibletopaytheBel sationofalossofrightsalreadyac gianpension;inthesecondcase,since quiredbyatleastequivalentbenefits; thepersonconcerneddoesnotsatisfy —inthepresentcaseMrGoffartsuf theconditionsrequiredforpaymentof ers,byvirtueofBelgianlegislation, hispensioninBelgium,eventhough alawfulreductioninthetotalofhis hesatisfiestheconditionslaiddownby pensionbutontheotherhandhe Belgianlegislationforconfermentof wouldsufferanunjustifiedlossif, therighthemightclaimthebenefitof owingtothesamecircumstance,his subparagraph(f)tohavetheFrench Frenchfractionweretobedecreased pensioncalculatedsolelyintermsofthe bytakingintoconsiderationthe periodscompletedinFrance. periodsofemploymentcompletedin TheCommissionnextrecallsthatithas Belgium,forwhichacorresponding alreadyexpressed,inCases2/67and pensionisnotbeingpaidtohim; 11/67,theopinionthatnon-paymentof —forthesereasonsitisoflittleim thepensioninoneMemberStatemust portanceforthepurposesofArticle involveinanotherStatethecalculation 28(1)(f)toseekthereasonswhy ofthefractionofpensionintermssolely thepersonconcerneddoesnotreceive oftheperiodscompletedinthelatter benefitunderthelegislationofan State,andthatthesubdedistinctions otherMemberState;itissufficient between'conferment'and'suspensionof tonotethatinthiscasehedoesnot therighttobenefits'areirrelevant. satisfyallthe'conditions'prescribed Insupportofitsargumentitpointsout bythatlegislation. that: ConsequentlytheCommissionexpresses —inconsideringtheconditionswith theopinionthatanaffirmativereply 'whichArticle28(1)(f)isconcerned, shouldbegiventothequestionput. accountmustbetakenofthepro B—TheCaisseRégionaledeSécurité visionsofsub-paragraph(a)ofthe SocialeduNord-Estobservesthatthe sameparagraph,intermsofwhich questiontoberesolvedinthiscaseis
SÉCURITÉSOCIALEDUNORD-ESTvGOFFART
whetherMrGoffart'spositionwithre sonwhoserightshaveonlybeen gardtoold-ageinsuranceistobe conferredinasingleMemberState governedbyArticle28(1)(b)ofRegu totakeadvantageofthelegislation lationNo3oftheEECorbypara ofthatStateandsincethisadvantage graph1(f)ofthesaidArticle.Inthis isreviewedinaccordancewithCom connexionitmaintainsthat: munityrulestotheextenttowhich —Article27ofRegulationNo3puts therightsofthepersonconcerned forwardtheprincipleofcompulsory areconferredinoneormore aggregationofinsuranceperiods—in States; sofarastheydonotoverlap—com — thisisnotthecasewithMrGoffart, pletedbyaninsuredpersonwhowas whosepensionrightswereconferred successivelyoralternativelysubject bothinBelgiumandinFrance,and tothelegislationoftwoormore thepaymentofwhoseBelgianpen MemberStates;thus,atthetimeof sionhasbeensuspended:
theentryintoforceofRegulations —forthepurposesofArticle28(1) Nos3and4therightofoptionpro (f)itisoflittleimportancetoascer videdforbytheFranco-Belgianbi tainwhetherthepaymentofthepen lateralconventions,whichallowedthe sionissuspendedunderlegislation insuredpersontochoosebetween peculiartooneoftheMember. separatecalculationbythecontract States;forthisprovisiontoapply, ingStatesandcalculationbyaggre thepensionrightmustnothavebeen gationoftheinsuranceperiodswith conferredinoneoftheStates,for apportionment'proratatemporis', innocircumstancescanthecondi wasabrogated.Theprincipleput tionsforpaymentfoeassimilatedto forwardbyArticle27isconfirmed theconditionsforconferringthe anddevelopedbyArticle28(1)(a) right; and(b)fromwhichitemergesthat —inthepresentcaseMrGoffart'sright insuranceperiodscompletedunder toaBelgianpensionhasbeenrecog eachMemberState'sownlegislation nizedbytheBelgianinstitution shallfoeaggregatedinordertode whichhasinfactcalculatedhisfrac termine,foraccountingpurposes,a tionofpensionforaccountingpur totalpensiontheamountofwhich poses;
shallconsequentlybereduced'pro —asMrGoffartsatisfiestheconditions
ratatemporis'byeachoftheinstitu necessaryforconferringtherightto tionsconcerned; aBelgianpension,Article28(1)(f) —inthepresentcasetheFrenchin isnotapplicabletohimanditis stitutionmerelyconformedtothose largelyirrelevantwhetherthesaid provisions; pensionisorisnotpaid.
—MrGoffartisthereforewrongin TheCaisseRégionaledeSécuritéSo claiming,onthebasisofArticle28 cialeduNord-Estthusclaimsthatthe (1)(f),arighttoreceiveacomplete Courtshould'rulethatonlyArticle28 Frenchpension,sincetheaimofthis (1)(b)ofRegulationNo3oftheEEC provisionistoalowaninsuredper isapplicable'.
Groundsofjudgment
Byjudgmentof27April1967,receivedattheRegistryoftheCourtofJustice on15June1967,theSecondCivilChamberoftheFrenchCourdeCassation requestedtheCourt,underArticle177oftheTreatyestablishingtheEEC,
JUDGMENTOF30.11.1967—CASE22/67
togiveapreliminaryrulingontheinterpretationtobegiventotheprovisions ofArticle28(1)(b)and(f)ofChapter3ofHeadIIIofRegulationNo3of theEuropeanEconomicCommunityconcerningsocialsecurityformigrant workers.
TheFrenchCourdeCassationrequestedtheCourttorulewhetheramigrant workerwhoserightstoanold-agepensionhavebeencalculatedinaccordance withthelegislationoftwoMemberStatesundertheprovisionsofArticle28 (1)(a)and(b)oftheabove-mentionedRegulationNo3,'buttowhompay mentofthefractionofthepensionpayablebyoneofthemissuspended,is entidedtoobtainfromthesocialsecurityinstitutionoftheotherStatean amountofpensioncalculatedsolelyinaccordancewiththelegislationofthat Stateandtakingaccountoftheinsuranceperiodscompletedunderitsrules'.
ThequestionputtotheCourtturnsessentiallyontheinterpretationtobe giventoArticle28(1)(f)ofRegulationNo3oftheEECtakenincon junctionwithparagraph(1)(a)ofthesameArticle.
Moreprecisely,itbearsontheactualmeaning,withinthesystemsetupby thoseprovisions,ofthephrase:'Ifthepersonconcerneddoesnot...satisfy theconditionsrequiredbyallthelegislativesystemsapplicabletohim', appearingintheabove-mentionedArticle28(1)(f).
InitsobservationstheCaisseRégionaledeSécuritéSocialeduNord-Esthas expressedtheviewthatthewords'conditionsrequired'coveronlythecondi tionsforconferringtherighttobenefits,sothatanysuspensionofthepay mentofthebenefitsinoneoftheMemberStatesconcernedcouldnotby itselfjustifytheapplicationofparagraph(1)(f)andthusinvolvederogation fromtheprovisionsofArticle28(1)(b)regardingproratacalculation.
TheCommissionoftheEEContheotherhasmaintainedthatthewords 'conditionsrequired'relatetotheconditionsforconferringtherightaswell astheconditionsregardingpaymentofthebenefits.
ThewordingofArticle28(1)(f)doesnotdistinguishbetweenconferment oftherightandpaymentofthebenefits,butmerelyemploysthegeneral conceptof'conditionsrequired'.
Intheabsenceofanyindicationsinthetext,theactualmeaningofArticle 28(1)(f),aswellasthatofRegulationNo3consideredasawhole,mustbe soughtinthelightoftheobjectivessetforthinArticles48to51ofthe Treaty.
SÉCURITÉSOCIALEDUNORD-ESTVGOFFART
Article51oftheTreatyessentiallyreferstoacaseinwhichthelegislationof aMemberStatedoesnotbyitselfconfertherighttobenefitontheperson concernedowingtoaninsufficientnumberofperiodscompletedunderits legislation.
Tothatenditprovides,onbehalfofthemigrantworkerwhohasbeen successivelyoralternativelysubjecttothelegislationofseveralMember States,fortheaggregationofinsuranceperiodscompletedunderthelegisla tionofeachofthoseStates.
TheproratacalculationprovidedforinArticle28(1)ofRegulationNo3 presumeswithoutexceptionaprioraggregation.
Aggregationandproratacalculationarethuspoindessinacasewherethe personconcernedmayclaimbenefitunderthelegislationofoneMember Stateonthebasisoftheinsuranceperiodscompletedunderitslegislation alone.
ItisclearfromtheforegoingthatArticle51isintendedtoconferonthe migrantworkerthebenefitarisingfromCommunityregulationswithouthow everdiminishingtherightswhichhewouldhavehadifthoseregulationshad notbeenapplied.
Thisobjectivewouldbedisregardediftheworkerwereobliged,inorderto availhimselfofthefreedomofmovementwhichisguaranteedtohim,asa resultoftheentryintoforceoftheCommunityregulations,tosuffertheloss ofrightsalreadyacquiredinoneoftheMemberStatesunderthatState's ownlegislation.
Article28(1)(f)ofRegulationNo3oftheEECmustthusbeinterpreted asapplyingtocasesinwhichthepersonconcerneddoesnotsatisfythecondi tionsrequiredforthepaymentofbenefit.
Costs
ThecostsincurredbytheCommissionoftheEEC,whichsubmittedobserva tions,arenotrecoverable.Astheseproceedingsare,insofarastheparties tothemainactionareconcerned,inthenatureofastepintheactionpending beforetheFrenchCourdeCassationthedecisiononcostsisamatterfor thatcourt.
JUDGMENTOF30.11.1967—CASE22/67
Onthosegrounds,
Uponreadingthepleadings; UponhearingthereportoftheJudge-Rapporteur; UponhearingtheobservationsoftheCommissionoftheEECandofthe CaisseRégionaledeSécuritéSocialeduNord-Est; UponhearingtheopinionoftheAdvocate-General; HavingregardtotheTreatyestablishingtheEEC,especiallyArticles48to 51and177; HavingregardtotheProtocolontheStatuteoftheCourtofJusticeofthe EEC,especiallyArticle20; HavingregardtoRegulationNo3oftheCounciloftheEECconcerning socialsecurityformigrantworkers,especiallyArticles27and28; HavingregardtotheRulesofProcedureoftheCourtofJusticeoftheEuro peanCommunities;
THECOURT
inanswertothequestionreferredtoitbytheSecondCivilChamberofthe FrenchCourdeCassationbyjudgmentofthatcourtof27April1967, herebyrules:
I. Amigrantworkerwhoserightstoanold-agepensionhavebeen calculatedinaccordancewiththelegislationoftwoMemberStates undertheprovisionsofArticle28(1)(a)and(b)ofRegulationNo3 oftheCounciloftheEECconcerningsocialsecurityformigrant workersbuttowhompaymentofthefractionofthepension payablebyoneofthemissuspended,isentitledtoobtainfromthe socialsecurityinstitutionoftheotherMemberState anamountof pensioncalculatedsolelyinaccordancewiththelegislationofthat Stateandtakingaccountoftheinsuranceperiodscompletedunder itslegislation;
2.Thedecisiononcostsinthepresentproceedingsisamatterforthe SecondCivilChamberoftheFrenchCourdeCassation.
Lecourt Dormer
Trabucchi Monaco MertensdeWilmars
DeliverdinopencourtinLuxembourgon30November1967. A.VanHoutte R.Lecourt Registrar President