C-34/69

It is incompatible with the objectives of them the compensating benefits pre­ Articles 48 to 51 of the EEC Treaty scribed in those regulations. which constitute the basis, the frame­ Limitations may therefore be imposed on workers only in cases in which Com­ work and the bounds of the social munity regulations confer upon them security regulations to reduce the rights benefits which they would otherwise be of workers without conferring upon unable to obtain.

In Case 34/69

Reference to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Cour d'Appel, Paris, (Social Chamber), for a preliminary ruling in the action pending before that court between

Caisse d'assurance vieillesse des travailleurs salaries , Paris,

and

Jeanne Duffy , residing at, 17 rue Fourcroy, Paris,

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Issues of fact and of law

I — Facts and procedures than the survivor's pension—which is the case here—a differential supplement Mrs Jeanne Duffy, nee Dustin, originally is paid. a Belgian national, married Mr Duffy, a The Caisse considered that those pro­ French national, and went to live with visions were applicable to the present him in France where she acquired case under Article 11(2) of Regulation French nationality by virtue of a Decree No 3 of the Council concerning social of 1945. security for migrant workers which In her own right she has been receiving provides: since 1 September 1958 an old-age pen­ 'Provisions in the legislation of one sion paid by the Caisse nationale des Member State for the reduction or pensions pour employees of Brussels. suspension of benefit where there is Following the death of her husband on plurality with other social insurance 9 March 1965, she made an application benefits, shall apply to a beneficiary dated 16 April 1965 to the Caisse even in respect of 'benefits acquired nationale d'assurance vieillesse des tra­ under a scheme in another Member vailleurs salaries de Paris (hereinafter State, or in respect of income derived referred to as 'the Caisse') for the sur­ from, or employment in, the territory vivors' pension for widows laid down in of another Member State: provided Article L 351 of the Social Security that this rule shall not apply where Code. benefits of the same kind are acquired According to that provision, in accordance with the provisions of 'If the insured person shall die after Articles 26 and 28 of this regulation.' attaining the age of 60 years, his On the basis of the aforementioned pro­ dependent spouse shall be entitled... visions the Caisse refused Mrs Duffy to a survivor's pension if she is not the pension which she claimed, but grant­ in receipt of or has not a contingent ed her a differential pension correspond­ right to benefit under social security ing to the amount of the survivor's legislation.' pension reduced by the amount of the Nevertheless under Article 148(3) of the old-age pension which she received from Decree of 29 December 1945 when the the Belgian Pension Fund. amount of the personal benefit is less Mrs Duffy made an application against

The Caisse appealed against this de­ Article 20 of the Statute of the Court cision to the Cour d'Appel, Paris, Social may be summarized as follows: Chamber, and the latter, by a judgment of 27 June 1969, referred the following A — Observations submitted by Mrs question to the Court of Justice under Jeanne Duffy Article 177 of the EEC Treaty: Mrs Duffy recalls that, according to its 'Can Regulation No 3, concerning very title, Regulation No 3 concerns social security for migrant workers, 'social security for migrant workers' and especially Article 11(2) dealing with that its object is to prevent those work­ provisions for the reduction or sus­ ers from being adversely affected in pension of benefit, apply as against a social security matters by reason of their widow who is in receipt of an old-age movement within the Common Market. pension obtained by virtue of her It is precisely to this end that, especially having worked as a wage-earner in with regard to old-age pensions, the one Member State and who claims in legislature conceived Articles 27 and 28 a second Member State where she has to which provisions the Court has given her permanent residence, the sur­ a particularly wide interpretation. vivor's pension acquired by her hus­ The area of application of Regulation band in the second Member State.' No 3 is in principle defined by Article The decision containing the reference 4(1) but this provision is not to be understood in an absolute sense. The was despatched on 28 July 1969 and entered at the Court Registry on 30 very general wording employed therein, July 1969. even referring to workers who were only In accordance with the second para­ subject to the legislation of one Member graph of Article 20 of the Protocol on State, was adopted to cover all the par­ the Statute of the Court of Justice an­ ticular cases referred to by this regula­ tion which in fact lays down certain nexed to the Treaty establishing the EEC, Mrs Duffy, the Caisse and the provisions (for example Article 19(1) and (7)) with regard to those workers. Commission of the European Communi­ ties submitted written observations. Nevertheless, it must certainly not be deduced from those particular cases that Upon hearing the report of the Judge- Article 4 establishes a general and ab­ Rapporteur and the views of the Advo­ solute rule as this would lead to absurd cate-General, the Court decided to results. It is clear that a worker who has dispense with measures of preparatory worked and resided only in France in inquiry. principle comes under French legislation The oral observations of Mrs Duffy and alone and that this legislation would be of the Commission of the European simply set aside if this article were in­ Communities were presented at the terpreted in an absolute sense. Thus, hearing of 19 November 1969. apart from certain particular cases and The Advocate-General delivered his the clear and express provisions which opinion at the hearing on 3 December refer to them, all the other provisions of 1969. the regulation apply only to migrant

workers who are subject to the legisla With regard to the wording of Article tion of two or more Member States. 11(2) of Regulation No 3, it conforms Mrs Duffy states, however, that neither entirely to the spirit of national law on Mr Duffy who was employed only in this topic, especially that of French law; France nor she herself who was em the content of this paragraph, moreover, ployed only in Belgium, was subject to seems perfectly clear and unequivocal. the legislation of two or more Member Furthermore, Decision No 31 of 27

The their being adversely affected by reason Caisse concludes that the survivors' pen of such movement, should result in re sion requested by Mrs Duffy must be ducing the rights which the person con subject to the provisions on plurality cerned previously enjoyed under internal laid down by Article L 351 of the French legislation alone which does not Social Security Code which are merely consider foreign benefits as a ground emphasized in clear and precise terms for reducing the French survivors' by Article 11(2) of Regulation No 3.

ASSURANCE VIEILLESSE v DUFFY

preted in terms of Article 51 of the accident benefits), such as those in the EEC Treaty so that in the present case present case which are constituted partly an endeavour must be made to arrive at by an old-age pension and partly by a an interpretation of Article 11 of Regu­ survivor's pension. lation No 3 which is compatible with The adoption of the said paragraph is the said article. justified by the fact that the application of the legislative systems of the Member States without territorial restrictions 2. The answer to the question may be regarded as a logical comple­ (a) The application of Regulation No ment or a kind of counterpart to the 3 to the present case other provisions of the regulation which abolish in favour of the persons con­ According to the Commission, the fact cerned the territorial restrictions with

JUDGMENT OF 10. 12. 1969 — CASE 34/69

laws of the several countries and the tice has moreover recognized the com­ payment of benefits to persons resident plementary nature of this relationship as in the territories of Member States. regards Article 52(1) of Regulation No 3 However, these two factors merely con­ (judgment in Case 33/64'). stitute particular applications of a gen­ The Commission finally adds that Mrs eral principle which forms the basis of Duffy's view that, since she did not any international coordination and the benefit from the more favourable pro­ concept thereof: the abolition of terri­ visions of Regulation No 3 with regard torial restrictions by taking into account to the conditions relating to the acquisi­ factors originating in another Member tion of her pension rights, it would be State as if they had originated on the illogical to apply to her the provisions territory of the State in question. of this regulation with regard to the This principle is frequently applied in ascertainment of those rights in such a regulations concerning social security manner as to restrict them, is mistaken. where it has given rise to numerous Although it is true that her rights were provisions whose aim is to settle positive acquired in Belgium under Belgian legis­ and negative conflicts of national laws. lation alone, it is also true that it is All these provisions are derived from precisely owing to Regulation No 3 'that the same principle and complement one the Belgian pension is paid to her in another to such an extent that it is France, as in the absence of this regula­ difficult to conceive that it might be tion the old-age pension is not payable possible to deny that certain provisions outside that country under the said are applicable on the ground that their legislation. object is to settle positive conflicts, since The Commission ends by expressing the on such a view coordination on the view that an affirmative answer should Community level would be incomplete be given to the question put by the and lack coherence. The Court of Jus- Cour d'appel, Paris.

5 Under Article 11(2) provisions in the legislation of one Member State for the reduction or suspension of benefit where there is plurality with other social insurance benefits shall apply to a beneficiary even in respect of benefits acquired under a scheme in another Member State.

6 In order to define the meaning and scope of this provision it must be inter­ preted in the light of Articles 48 to 51 of the Treaty which constitute the basis, the framework and the bounds of the social security regulations.

7 Since those articles are intended to ensure the free movement of workers by conferring on them certain rights, to reduce the rights of workers without conferring upon them the compensating benefits prescribed in the regulations would be to depart from the purpose and framework of the said provisions.

8 In cases in which the regulations confer on workers social security benefits which they would otherwise be unable to obtain, limitations may be imposed on them corresponding to the advantages which they derive therefrom.

9 In the absence of such a counterbalance, such limitations cannot be justified since they would result in placing the worker in a situation less favourable than that which, were it not for the regulations, would follow from the application of national law or of the special conventions between Member States.

10 Consequently restrictions, such as those provided for or permitted by Article 11(2) of Regulation No 3 with regard to certain social security benefits, are only applicable to insured persons if they are in receipt of benefits acquired through the application of that regulation.

THE COURT

in answer to the question referred to it by the Cour d'appel, Paris, (Social Chamber) by judgment of 27 June 1969, hereby rules:

Provisions in the legislation of one Member State for the reduction or suspension of benefit where there is plurality with other social insur­ ance benefits only apply, by virtue of Article 11(2) of Regulation No 3, to insured persons if they are in receipt of benefits which they acquired through the application of the said regulation.

Lecourt Monaco Pescatore

Dormer Trabucchi Strauß Mertens de Wilmars

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 10 December 1969.