C-27/69

compagnie belge d'assurances générales SUR la vie et contre les accidents, Brussels,

Mrs Marcelle Simon (nee Warnotte), widow of Paul Simon, residing in Luxembourg, also being represented,

on the interpretation of Article 52 of Regulation No 3 of the Council of the EEC of 25 September 1958 concerning social security for migrant workers,

THE COURT

composed of: R. Lecourt, President, R. Monaco and P. Pescatore, Presidents of Chambers, A. M. Donner, A. Trabucchi (Rapporteur), W. Strauß and J. Mertens de Wilmars, Judges,

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

I — Facts and procedure instituted against the said judgment by the Caisse de maladie des CFL and the The facts and procedure may be sum­ CFL before the Cour supérieure de marized as follows: justice of the Grand Duchy, that court, On the night of 19 April 1964 Mr Paul by a judgment of 20 May 1969, which Simon, an employee of the Société Nat­ was received at the Court Registry on ionale des Chemins de fer luxembour­ 17 June 1969, requested the Court of geois (Luxembourg National Railway Justice of the European Communities to Company) (CFL), residing in Luxem­ give a preliminary ruling on the fol­ bourg, was killed in a traffic accident in lowing questions: Belgium while in a car driven by Mr '(1) Is the concept of 'migrant worker', Fernand Hein. which appears in Article 52 of In the proceedings for material and non- Regulation No 3 of 25 September material damages, brought by the widow 1958 concerning social security for of Mr Simon, Mrs Marcelle Simon (nee migrant workers, applicable to a Warnotte), before the tribunal d'arron­ wage-earner (in the Grand dissement, Luxembourg, against Mr Duchy), that is: to a wage-earner Hein's insurer, the Compagnie beige who has both his place of work d'assurances generates sur la vie et contre and place of permanent residence les accidents, the following parties ap­ in the Grand Duchy, but who, in peared: the course of a pleasure trip has been involved in a traffic acci­ 1. The Caisse de maladie des CFL (CFL Sickness Fund), and dent owing to the fault of a third party in the territory of another 2. The Société nationale des chemins de Member State, in this case in fer luxembourgeois. Belgian territory? The first party claimed a certain sum to (2) Is Article 52 applicable when the compensate for funeral expenses advan­ person liable for payment of bene­ ced and the second claimed compensation fit does not institute proceedings for its expenses arising from the pay­ before the foreign court but be­ ment of benefit owed to the widow and fore his national court? orphan of Mr Simon. (3) Subparagraph (b) of the first By judgment of 11 July 1967 the tri­ paragraph of Article 52 makes bunal d'arrondissement, Luxembourg, provision for a 'direct claim' in found against those two parties, decid­ favour of the person liable for ing that the law applicable to the case payment of benefit; what claim or was that of the place where the accident remedy did the legislature en­ occurred and that Belgian law provided visage? May this claim be in­ no remedy for the two parties, because voked without its having been the the origin of the benefits which they subject of a previous bilateral were obliged to provide was not found Belgo-Luxembourg agreement, the in the fault of the person responsible for existing agreement of 16 Novem­ the accident, but in the contractual or ber 1959 being limited to sub­ statutory provisions of the contract of paragraph (a) of the first paragraph employment. of Article 52 concerning sub­ In the course of the appeal proceedings rogation?'

Pursuant to the second paragraph of concerning the application of Article 52 Article 20 of the Protocol on the Statute of Regulation No 3 decides that: of the Court of Justice of the EEC the 'The person liable for payment of plaintiffs in the main action, the de benefit shall be substituted for the fendant in the main action and the Com injured person or his dependants in mission of the European Communities claims against the third party, under submitted written observations. the conditions provided for by the Upon hearing the report of the Judge- legislation applicable to the first Rapporteur and the views of the Ad

or foreign territory. The defendant in the main action, on II — Observations submitted the other hand, observes that the right pursuant to Article 20 accorded to the widow both by Belgian of the Statute and Luxembourg legislation to institute proceedings against the third party pre The observations submitted pursuant to sumed responsible so as to obtain com Article 20 of the Statute of the Court pensation for the damage suffered by the may be summarized as follows: death of her husband does not ipso facto imply the right of the institution paying The first question her the benefits also to act in its own name against the third party presumed The plaintiffs in the main action, the liable. Even if Luxembourg law gave defendant in the main action and the CFL a direct claim in this matter, this

This is the caused. commonest instance but the rule has a general scope and it should also be ap The second question plied to cases where proceedings are commenced before a national court. In The plaintiffs in the main action observe order to avoid any ambiguity in this that Article 1 of the bilateral agreement sphere the Commission is at present between Belgium and the Grand Duchy contemplating a proposal to the Council

for the amendment of Article 52 by can far from being uniformly established not celling the words 'in the latter State's only from one Member State to another territory' where they occur in that but even between one national court article. and another. Moreover, the interpreta The reply to this question must be in tion of the agreement in question is the affirmative in view also of the judg solely a matter of national law. ment of the Court of Justice of 9 In any event, in the absence of a bi December 1965 in Case No 44/65 on lateral Belgo-Luxembourg agreement re the scope of Article 52 in connexion lating expressly to the direct claims re with the subrogation to the rights of ferred to by subparagraph (b) of the first the beneficiary of the institution liable paragraph of Article 52, these claims, for payment of benefit in any claims he which are rejected by Belgium, can may have against the third party liable. not be imposed upon it. Nor can they

Subparagraphs therefore be taken that since the authors (a) and (b) state that each Member State of this agreement do not speak of a shall recognize either the subrogation or direct claim and employ the word 'sub the direct claim of the institution liable stituted' instead of 'subrogated', they did for payment of benefit. In fact in this not envisage a restriction of Article 52 connexion the legal systems of the Mem which, moreover, is contrary to the ber States provide for either one or meaning and object of this provision and other of those two possibilities.

11 January 1961. The reason for leaving cerned. out subparagraph (b) of the first para graph of Article 52 is to be explained The Court's interpretation relates to the by the fact that both the existence and first paragraph as a whole. It may there the extent of direct claims against third fore be deduced from this that it re parties which may be asserted by institu fers to direct claims as well as to sub tions liable for payment of benefit are rogation.

4 The fact that the said provision even refers to persons who come or have come under the legislation of a single Member State shows that, far from referring solely to migrant workers within the strict meaning of the term, the regulation is applicable to any wage-earner or assimilated worker who finds himself in one of the situations involving international elements as provided for in the said regulation, as well as to his survivors.

5 In referring to persons in receipt of benefit under the legislation of one Member State for an injury sustained in the territory of another Member State, Article 52 of Regulation No 3 plainly refers to the persons mentioned by that regulation, more particularly by Article 4 thereof, in so far as these persons have sustained an injury in the circumstances provided for by the said Article 52.

6 To subject the application of that article to the existence of a connexion between the injury and the status of migrant worker would therefore amount to restricting its scope.

ENTR'AIDE MÉDICALE v ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES

7 Consequently the provisions of Article 52 of Regulation No 3 are applicable even when the injury sustained by the worker has no connexion with his professional or trade activity.

The second question

13 In its third question the national court refers to the 'direct claim' provided for by subparagraph (b) of the first paragraph of Article 52 in favour of the person liable for payment of benefit and asks what claim or remedy the legislature envisaged.

14 It clarifies its question by asking in addition whether this claim may be asserted without its having been the subject of a previous bilateral agreement between the State in which the institution liable for payment of benefit is situated and the State where the injury was sustained.

15 By the general nature of its terms, the object of Article 52 is to secure the recognition by each Member State of any right of action pursued by the others in favour of the institution liable for payment of benefit against the third party liable, either by means of subrogation or any other legal method.

JUDGMENT OF 12. 11. 1969 — CASE 27/69

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

17 Moreover, the said paragraph, in providing that 'any claims by the institution liable for payment of benefit against such third party shall be governed by the following rules', refers only to subparagraphs (a) and (b).

23 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 supérieure de justice of Luxembourg, 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 plaintiffs in the main action, the defendant in the main action and the Commission of the European Communities; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General;

ENTR'AIDE MÉDICALE v ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Com­ munity, especially Article 177; Having regard to Regulation No 3 of the Council of the EEC of 25 Sep­ tember 1958, especially Article 52; Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Economic Community, especially Article 20; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the Euorpean Communities,

THE COURT

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 12 November 1969.

A. Van Houtte R. Lecourt Registrar President