C-32/75

Article 7 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No advantages therefore also include fares 1612/68 of the Council on freedom of reduction cards issued by a national movement for workers within the railway authority to large families and Community must be interpreted as this applies even if this advantage is only meaning that it refers to all social and tax sought after the worker's death, to the advantages, whether or not attached to benefit of his family remaining in the the contract of employment. These same Member State.

In Case 32/75

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

Anita Fiorini (née Cristini) widow of Eugenio Fiorini, residing at Vénissieux, France, and

Société nationale des chemins de fer français, whose registered office is situated in Paris,

on the interpretation of Article 7 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the

Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Facts

The judgment containing the order of amended by the Law of 24 December reference and the written observations 1940, and Decree No 61-1216 of 3 submitted under Article 20 of the November 1961, which provides: 'in Protocol on the Statute of the Court of families of three or more children under Justice of the EEC may be summarized 18 years of age …, the father, the mother as follows: and each child. under 18 years of age shall receive a personal identity card which entitles them to a reduction of: … I — Facts and procedure (30 to 75 %) on the ordinary fares set out in the general fares table of the SNCF'. 1. Mrs Fiorini, an Italian national, has resided in France since 1962. She is the widow of a worker who was also of The SNCF refused this request on the grounds that Mrs Fiorini did not satisfy Italian nationality and who died as a the conditions laid down in Article 44 of result of an industrial accident in France the Law of 22 March 1924 under which: in 1968. She is not herself gainfully 'except where reciprocal arrangements employed. She has four children born in have been made …, the reductions on 1956, 1958, 1966 and 1967. rail fares for the benefit of large families In 1971 she asked for the issue of a shall only apply to French citizens ...'. reduction card for large families by the Société nationale des chemins de fer Mrs Fiorini brought an action against the français (SNCF) for herself and her SNCF before the Tribunal de grande children. instance, Paris, to obtain the reduction card' and invoked Article 7 (2) of This reduction card is provided for by Regulation No 1612/68 of the Council the French Law of 29 October 1921, as on freedom of movement for workers

within the Community, under which a II — Written observations sub worker who is a national of a Member mitted to the Court State shall enjoy, in the territory of the other Member States, 'the same social… 1. Observations of the appellant in the advantages as national workers'. The main action Tribunal dismissed her claim by a judgment of 8 November 1973, finding Mrs Fiorini emphasizes that she satisfies 'that the advantage claimed does not all the conditions laid down by the attach exclusively to an individual's status French legislation to obtain a reduction as a worker', and 'that it therefore falls card. She only lacks French nationality. outside the scope of Article 7 (2) of Regulation No 1612/68'. The Court of Justice has already confirmed the principle of equality of treatment resulting from Article 7 of Mrs Fiorini appealed against this Regulation No 1612/68.

She SNCF to large families constitutes for the considers the Court to have workers of the Member States a "social demonstrated that it has a very wide advantage" within the meaning of Article concept of equality of treatment in order 7 of Regulation No 1612/68 of the to prevent migrant workers from being Council of the European Communities treated unfavourably and to enable their of 15 October 1968'. assimilation to be as complete as possible. 2. The judgment making the reference was received at the Court Registry on 21 In reply to the arguments of the SNCF March 1975. that the advantages provided for under Regulation No 1612/68 are only accorded by reason of the beneficiary s The appellant in the main action, status as a worker and that the advantage represented by J. Schlissinger, Advocate in question is not a social advantage, Mrs of the Paris Bar, the respondent in the Fiorini claims that, because he was an main action, represented by A. G. Italian national, Community regulations Michel, Advocate of the Paris Bar, the applied to her husband, a migrant worker French Government, the Italian residing in France, that the number of Government, represented by its dependent children of the family was in Ambassador, A. Maresca, assisted by A. accordance with French law and that the Marzano, State Advocate-General, and the requirement of French nationality Commission, represented by its Legal constitutes discrimination between the Adviser Marie-José Jonczy, submitted national workers of the different Member written observations. States which is prohibited under the Community regulations.

JUDGMENT OF 30. 9. 1975 — CASE 32/75

2. Observations of the Société nationale employment' or 'the conditions of des chemins de fer français employment and work'. It follows that exceptions to this principle must be The SNCF examines first of all Articles interpreted restrictively. 48 and 49 of the EEC Treaty and Regulation No 1612/68, adopted in In this connexion it refers to the 'Action implementation thereof. Programme for Migrant Workers and It maintains that it is apparent from this their Families', submitted by the Commission to the Council on 18

remain. Regulation No 1612/68 concerning the housing of workers. To remedy this it is necessary: to extend The SNCF then considers the these social benefits, which are not above-mentioned judgment of the Court directly related to the exercise of paid in Case 76/72, Michel S. v Fonds employment and which are at present national de reclassement social des confined by the Member States to their handicapés, in which the Court ruled own nationals, to workers from other that the benefits referred to by Article 7 Member States and their families' … and of Regulation No 1612/68 'include it adds in a note: 'For example: reduced measures provided by national legislation fares on public transport, aid to large with a view to allowing the rehabilitation families and the handicapped, etc' of the handicapped …'. The SNCF emphasizes that, unlike the In this connexion the SNCF observes, popular annual holiday tickets or the first, that in that judgment the Court 'worker's' season tickets, which are

the same way as a national worker as employed within its territory receive all regards all conditions of employment the advantages which it confers on its and work. The grant of a reduction card own nationals'. to large families is an essentially demographic measure the benefit of The Italian Government refers to the which extends to the entire French fifth recital in Regulation No 1612/68 population, without being in any way and maintains that the aim of the linked to the status of the head of Community regulations is to integrate household as a worker. the family of the migrant worker into the social fabric of the host country. The The Government recalls that the mere fact of being unable to benefit from provisions concerning the grant of the reductions which are granted by a reduction card are included in the 'Code Member State to its own nationals de la famille et de l'aide sociale' in Tide represents an obstacle to the mobility 1 ('Social welfare of the family"), Chapter and integration which the Community II, Section I ('General types of rules seek to bring about. compensation in respect of dependants'). This is, therefore, a different question In the opinion of the Italian Government from those involved in the judgments the fact that the reductions are provided given in the abovementioned Case 76/72, for by rules of a general nature which do Michel S. v Fonds national de not require the existence of a connexion reclassement social des handicapés, and between the advantage in question and in Case 68/74 (Angelo Alaimo v Préfet employment cannot prevent their du Rhône, judgment of 29 January 1975 inclusion among the 'social advantages'. [1975] ECR 109). If only the national provisions expressly

relating to workers had to be applied to territory of a member State after being migrant workers it would be easy to employed in that State (OJ (English circumvent the Community rules by special Edition 1970 (II), p. 402)), Article extending the 'social advantages' to apply 7 of which provides that The right to to all nationals. The fact that the national equality of treatment, established by workers may benefit under rules of a Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68, general nature must be regarded as shall apply also to persons coming under sufficient the provisions of this Regulation'. Moreover, the mere fact that the right of Although there is no disagreement the migrant worker to benefit from the between the parties to the main action 'same social .

performance of work. The Government maintains that the judgment referred to in the Michel S. If this were not the case it would have to case must not be interpreted as limiting, be accepted that, for example, the in principle, the benefit of the social migrant worker was no longer entitled to advantages to the migrant workers benefit from such social advantages themselves. The distinction was drawn in whenever he was unemployed. Similarly, this judgment between the advantages if the 'tax advantages' referred to in the accorded to the worker and those same provision as the social advantages accorded to the members of his family had to be limited to those which are not in order to exclude the latter from connected with the actual performance the advantages provided for the worker, of work, the reduced rates of tax laid but rather by reason of the special nature down, for example, in respect of of Article 12 of that Regulation in pensions, by the legislation of a Member relation to the point at issue and, State would only be applicable to the therefore, in order to define the principle pensions of the national workers. appliable to the particular case. In the opinion of the Italian Government The Italian Government maintains that the clearly mistaken nature of these the arguments set out above in relation conclusions, the necessary consequence to the aims of the Community rules, of a restrictive interpretation of render it impossible to discriminate, as Community rules, shows that in regards social advantages, between the guaranteeing to migrant workers the persons entitled thereto. same social, tax and housing advantages as are accorded to the national workers, The Government maintains that for the Community legislature did not limit several reasons it is not possible to reach itself only to those advantages which are an opposite conclusion merely on the connected with the performance of work. basis of the context of the various

CRISTINI v SNCF

favour of the members of the family do If this were not the case it must be not constitute exceptions to a principle accepted that there could be a disparity which restricts the benefit of the social in the treatment of the nationals of the

advantages to the worker alone. They are other Member States not only as regards themselves the independent expression benefits such as, for example, reductions of the principle of nondiscrimination on granted by reasons of the status or age of which the Community regulations are the persons concerned, but also as based. regards all welfare and public service benefits and even as regards the prices of The manifest injustice of a restrictive consumer products. The very absurdity of interpretation leads the Italian these hypotheses must exclude a priori, Government to consider that the present independently of the special rules issued proceedings provide the Court with a in favour of migrant workers, any refusal very good opportunity to make a ruling to issue the reduction card to large in accordance with the wide families on grounds of nationality. interpretation which it has always adopted in relation to the rules on the Furthermore, it would be extraordinary to free movement of workers. accept discrimination in fares as regards individuals when such discrimination is

JUDGMENT OF 30. 9. 1975 — CASE. 32/75

nondiscrimination rule formulated by The Commission maintains first of all Article 7 for the general application of that the appellant in the main action is the Treaty'. not herself a wage-earner, but she clearly benefits from the right to remain in the The Commission therefore proposes that territory under Regulation No 1251/70 of the Court should give the following reply the Commission and is the dependant of to the question asked by the Cour a worker. Thus, it is in relation to her d'appel, Paris: husband that the question whether

8 July 1975. fundamental legal provisions of the Community', (judgment in Case 2/74, During this hearing the representative of Reyners v Belgian State [1974] ECR 631) the SNCF laid special emphasis on the must not be applied in this instance. fact that Article 7 of the EEC Treaty, to Even if all discrimination on ground of which the Italian Government and the nationality cannot be abolished on the Commission referred, is only applicable basis of a particular provision of the 'within the scope of application of this Treaty, in this instance Article 48, resort Treaty and without prejudice to any

[1974] ECR 1405), the Court impliedly activity. acknowledged the direct applicability of the latter Article, which is a general The Advocate-General delivered his principle governing the whole of opinion at the hearing on 18 September Community law. It recalls on this subject 1975.

4 The French Law of 29 October 1921, as amended by the Law of 24 December 1940 and the Decree of 3 November 1961, provides that in families of three or more children under the age of eighteen years the father, the mother and each child shall, at the request of the head of the family, receive an identity card entitling them to certain reductions in the fares of the SNCF.

5 Article 20 of the Code français de la famille et de l'aide sociale (French. Family and Social Security Code) (Decree of 24 January 1956) provides that for the purpose of assisting families in bringing up their children, they shall be granted certain allowances and benefits, which are listed, albeit not exhaustively, and include, apart from family benefits provided for by the social security legislation and tax reductions or exemptions, reductions in the railway fares prescribed by the Law concerned in the present case.

JUDGMENT OF 30. 9. 1975 — CASE 32/75

6 Although the Court, when giving a ruling under Article 177, has no jurisdiction to apply the Community rule to a specific case, or, consequently, to pronounce upon a provision of national law, it may however provide the national court with the factors of interpretation depending on Community law which might be useful to it in evaluating the effects of such provision.

7 Article 7 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 provides that a worker who is a national of a Member State may not, in the territory of the other Member States, be treated differently from national workers by reason of his nationality in respect of any conditions of employment and work.

CRISTINI v SNCF

attached to the contract of employment, such as reductions in fares for large families.

14 It then becomes necessary to examine whether such an advantage must be granted to the widow and children after the death of the migrant worker when the national law provides that, at the request of the head of the family, each member of the family shall be issued with an identity card entitling him or her to the reduction.

15 If the widow and infant children of a national of the Member State in

question are entitled to such cards provided that the request had been made by the father before his death, the same must apply where the deceased father was a migrant worker and a national of another Member State.

16 It would be contrary to the purpose and the spirit of the Community rules on freedom of movement for workers to deprive the survivors of such a benefit following the death of the worker whilst granting the same benefit to the survivors of a national.

On those grounds,

THE COURT

in answer to the question referred to it by the Cour d'appel, Paris, by judgment of 14 March 1975 hereby rules:

Article 7 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council on freedom of movement for workers within the Community must be interpreted as meaning that the social advantages referred to by that provision include fares reduction cards issued by a national railway authority to large families and that this applies, even if the said advantage is only sought after the worker's death, to the benefit of his family remaining in the same Member State.

Lecourt Mertens de Wilmars Mackenzie Stuart Donner Monaco

Pescatore Kutscher Sørensen O'Keeffe