C-93/75
ECLI:EU:C:1975:178
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61975CJ0093
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 17 DECEMBER 1975 <apnote>1</apnote>
Jacob Adlerblum v Caisse Nationale d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Salariés (preliminary ruling requested by the Commission de Première Instance du Contentieux de la Sécurité Sociale et de la Mutualité Sociale Agricole, Paris)
Case 93/75
Summary
Questions referred for preliminary ruling — Nature of questions — National legislation — Interpretation — Pension — Classification in relation to another national legislative system — Lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Court (EEC Treaty, Article 177)
The Court has no jurisdiction to give a the legislation of another Member State, preliminary ruling on the question of the as such a question pertains to national classification under the legislation of one law alone. Member State of a benefit awarded under
In Case 93/75
Reference to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Commission de Première Instance du Contentieux de la Sécurité Sociale et de
la Mutualité Sociale Agricole, Paris, for a preliminary ruling in the action pending before that court between
JACOB ADLERBLUM, residing in Paris,
and
Caisse Nationale d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Salariés, Paris area,
on the question whether a pension awarded by a Member State to a national of another Member State as compensation for injuries caused by persecution on racial grounds is in the nature of a social assistance benefit,
1 — Language of the Case: French.
JUDGMENT OF 17. 12. 1975 - CASE 93/75
THE COURT
composed of: R. Lecourt, President, H. Kutscher, President of Chamber, A. M. Donner, J. Mertens de Wilmars, P. Pescatore, M. Sørensen and Lord Mackenzie Stuart, Judges,
Advocate-General: A. Trabucchi
Registrar: A. Van Houtte
gives the following
JUDGMENT
Facts
The facts of the case, the procedure and The decision of the Commission de the observations submitted under Article Recours Gracieux is based upon Article 20 of the Protocol on the Statute of the 71 (6) of Decree No 45-0179 of 29 Court of Justice of the EEC may be December 1945, which provides: summarized as follows: For the purposes of the award of the increase provided for in Article L 339 of I — Facts and procedure the Code de la Sécurité Sociale and Decree No 64-307 of 4 April 1964, a Jacob Adlerblum, a French national, has spouse shall be regarded as dependent received an old-age pension since 1 whose personal resources, assessed February 1974 owing to unfitness for pursuant to the conditions laid down by work. Decree No 64-300 of 1 April 1964 and increased by a sum equal to the amount On 21 October 1974 Mr Adlerblum of the increase provided for by the applied to the Caisse Nationale abovementioned Decree No 64-307 of 4 d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs April 1964, do not exceed the maximum salariés for the Paris area for the increase figure for the award to single persons of in the old-age pension in respect of a the allowance to aged employed persons. dependent spouse provided for in Article L 339 of the Code de la Sécurité Sociale On 1 February 1974, the maximum and in Decree No 64-307 of 4 April figure fixed in respect of personal 1964 which rescinds Article L 340 of the resources for the award of the allowance Code de la Securité Sociale and replaces to aged employed persons was FF 6 400 it by regulations. per year and the increase provided for in Decree No 64-307 of 4 April 1964 was This application was dismissed by the FF 2 450 per year. By virtue of a Commission de Recours Gracieux of the Decision of 13 July 1962 of the Pensions Caisse by decision of 24 March 1975. Department of the Land of North
ADLERBLUM v CAISSE NATIONALE D'ASSURANCE VIEILLESSE DES TRAVAILLEURS SALARIÉS
Rhine-Westphalia (Federal Republic of In accordance with Article 20 of the Germany) Mrs Adlerblum receives a Protocol on the Statute of the Court of pension as compensation for injuries due Justice of the EEC written observations to persecution on racial grounds of were lodged on 18 September 1975 by FF 10 915-32 per year under the Federal the Caisse Nationale d'Assurance Law of 29 June 1956 (Bundesgesetz zur Vieillesse des Travailleurs Salariés, the Entschädigung für Opfer der natio defendant in the main action, on 7
nalsozialistischen Verfolgung — Bundes October by Mr Adlerblum, the plaintiff entschädigungsgesetz). Mrs Adlerblum's in the main action, and on 4 November personal resources therefore exceed the by the Commission of the European maximum of FF 3 950 fixed in Communities. accordance with the Decree of 29 December 1945. Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur and the views of the On 6 May 1975 Mr Adlerblum appealed Advocate-General, the Court decided to against this decision to the Commission open the oral procedure without holding de Première Instance du Contentieux de any preparatory inquiry. la Sécurité Sociale et de la Mutualité Sociale Agricole, Paris.
He maintained primarily that the pension paid to his II — Written observations sub wife as compensation for physical mitted to the Court injuries suffered as a result of persecution was to be regarded as benefits granted by Mr Adlerblum, the plaintiff in the main way of social assistance and that action, considers that the benefit in accordingly they should not be taken question in the main action must be into account for the assessment of regarded as a social assistance benefit for resources under the Decree of 1 April the following reasons in particular: 1964. (a) the letter and the spirit of the German law of 29 June 1956 only
Considering the dispute before it to envisage compensation for injury to amount to the question whether the life and limb, damage to health and pension awarded to Mrs Adlerblum by loss of liberty on the part of the Federal Republic of Germany was in beneficiaries for whom society the nature of a social assistance benefit, assumes responsibility; the Commission de Première Instance du (b) compensation might as easily have Contentieux de la Sécurité Sociale et de taken the form of a lump sum la Mutualité Sociale Agricole, Paris, payment or temporary assistance as decided on 2 July 1975, under Article that of a pension; the latter cannot be 177 of the EEC Treaty, to stay the treated as a profit or income resulting proceedings until the Court of Justice in some way from a transfer of had given a preliminary ruling on the property or from an investment; following question: (c) pensions are closely related to social
security benefits for public Did the Decision of 13 July 1962 of the employees, which govern any Land of North Rhine-Westphalia which increase in the former; was made under Article 195 of the (d) although, as regards the pension in Federal Law of 29 June 1956 grant Mrs question, German subjects who Adlerblum a social assistance benefit? adopted French nationality after 1945 are the responsibility of the Federal The decision of the Commission de Republic of Germany, those who Première Instance du Contentieux de la were naturalized before the war may Securité Sociale, Paris, was received at the benefit in France from assistance Court Registry on 2 September 1975. which is undeniably social in nature.
JUDGMENT OF 17. 12. 1975 - CASE 93/75
The Caisse Nationale d'Assurance this benefit is outside the scope of the Vieillesse des Travailleurs Salariés, Community Regulations, as Article 4 (4) Paris, the defendant in the main action, of Regulation No 1408/71 provides that observes that Article 3 of Decree No it 'shall not apply to ... benefit schemes 64-300 of 1 April 1964, to which Article for victims of war or its consequences 71 of the Decree of 29 December 1945 ...'. If the pension in question is a social applies for the purposes of the security benefit it must be taken into assessment of resources contains an account in assessing the resources of the exhaustive list of benefits, allowances and individual seeking the increase in grants which are not to be taken into pension, in accordance with Article 3 of account in the assessment of resources. the French Decree No 64-300 of 1 April Accordingly, as the pension in question 1964.
does not appear on this list, it must be taken into account. It therefore appears that what is required in this case is an interpretation of the The Commission of the European French legislation or even a ruling on Communities observes that it is clear the particular case at issue. Its own from its wording that the question case-law shows that the Court has no referred to the Court of Justice refers jurisdiction to give a ruling on such a neither to the interpretation nor to the question. validity of a Community measure. Even if, in order to resist a formalistic The Commission therefore considers that approach which would be incompatible the following reply might be given to the with the nature of the procedure for question referred to the Court of Justice: preliminary rulings, the provisions of Community law for which the Court's A decision on the question whether a interpretation is requested were to be German pension is, from the point of sought in the decision of the view of French legislation, in the nature Commission de Première Instance du of a social assistance benefit, is not Contentieux de la Sécurité Sociale of within the jurisdiction of the Court of Paris, it must be admitted that no Justice of the European Communities in Community provision is referred to the context of the procedure provided for therein. in Article 177 of the EEC Treaty, where the particular case at issue gives rise The only Community measures which neither to a question of interpretation of might be involved in the main action are the EEC Treaty nor to a question of the Council Regulation No 1408/71 of 14 validity or interpretation of measures June 1971 on the application of social adopted by the Community institutions. security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ English Special Edition III — Oral procedure 1971 (II), p. 416) and Regulation No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 fixing the The Commission, represented by its procedure for implementing Regulation Legal Adviser, Marie-José Jonczy, (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ, English Special presented oral argument at the hearing Edition 1972 (1), p. 159). In the light of on 10 December 1975. these provisions it must be concluded that if the pension paid to Mrs The Advocate-General delivered his Adlerblum is in compensation for opinion at the hearing on 16 December injuries suffered as a result of persecution 1975.
ADLERBLUM v CAISSE NATIONALE D'ASSURANCE VIEILLESSE DES TRAVAILLEURS SALARIÉS
Law
1 By decision of 2 July 1975, received at the Registry on 2 September 1975, the Commission de Première Instance du Contentieux de la Sécurité Sociale, Paris, referred to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty a question concerning the classification under French law of a decision of the authorities of the Federal Republic of Germany pursuant to the Federal Compensation Law (Bundesentschädigungsgesetz) of 29 June 1956.
2 The file shows that the plaintiff in the main action, who is in receipt of an old-age pension from the Caisse Nationale d'Assurance Vieillesse des Travailleurs Salariés, was refused an increase in pension in respect of a dependent spouse on the ground that his wife was receiving a pension from the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia under the aforementioned Law of the Federal Republic of Germany.
3 The plaintiff in the main action maintains that this pension, which is paid as compensation for injuries suffered by his wife as a result of persecution, is to be treated as a benefit granted by way of social assistance and that, as such, it should not be taken into account in the assessment of resources for the purpose of the grant of the increase in pension applied for.
4 It appears from the foregoing that since the question raised before the Commission de Première Instance du Contentieux de la Sécurité Sociale concerns the classification under French social security legislation of a benefit awarded under the German Compensation Law, it pertains to national law, alone and thus does not come within the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice.
Costs
5 The costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities, which has submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable.
6 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 Commission de Première Instance du Contentieux de la Sécurité Sociale, the decision as to costs is a matter for that tribunal.
JUDGMENT OF 17. 12. 1975 — CASE 93/75
On those grounds,
THE COURT
in answer to the question referred to it by the Commission de Première Instance du Contentieux de la Sécurité Sociale, Paris, by decision of 2 July 1975, hereby rules:
The Court has no jurisdiction to give a preliminary ruling on the question of the classification under French social security legislation of a benefit awarded under the German Compen sation Law (Bundesentschädigungsgesetz).
Lecourt Kutscher Donner
Mertens de Wilmars Pescatore Sørensen Mackenzie Stuart
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 17 December 1975.
A. Van Houtte R. Lecourt
Registrar President
OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE-GENERAL TRABUCCHI DELIVERED ON 16 DECEMBER 1975 <apnote>1</apnote>
Mr President, Taking this pension into account the Members of the Court, Commission de Recours Gracieux de la Caisse Nationale d'Assurance Vieillesse By a decision dated 13 July 1962 the des Travailleurs Salariés refused to grant Land of North Rhine-Westphalia granted the increase in pension allowable for a Mrs Chantal Adlerblum the right to a dependant spouse claimed by Mr Jacob pension as compensation for physical Adlerblum who was the beneficiary of an injuries caused by persecution on racial old-age pension in France. The decision grounds. This decision was based on the was founded on the French Decree of 29 Federal Law of 29 June 1956. December 1945 which lays down in
1 — Translated from the Italian.