C-55/77

(EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of of domestic laws, whatever their 14 June 1971 on the application of purpose, if the efficacy of that law and social security schemes to employed the necessary uniformity of its persons and their families moving application in all Member States and within the Community the to all those persons covered by the authorities, institutions and tribunals provisions at issue are not to be of the Member States are bound, jeopardized. notwithstanding, any provision of their In particular the general nature of the national laws to a different or contrary rule laid down in Article 84 (4) of effect, to accept all claims or other Regulation No 1408/71 and its documents which relate to the uniform application in all the implementation of the said regulation Member States would be called in

and which have been drawn up in an question if it were open to the official language of another Member authorities, institutions and tribunals State and they are not allowed in this of those States to limit its scope by connexion to make any distinctions reference to criteria based on the on grounds of nationality or residence nationality or residence of the persons between the persons concerned. concerned.

2. It is impossible for the authority of Community law to vary from one

In Case 55/77

Reference to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Arbeidsrechtbank (Labour Tribunal) of the judicial district of Antwerp for a preliminary ruling in the action pending before that court between

1 — Language of the Case: Dutch.

Advocate-General: F. Capotorti Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Facts and issues

The facts, the procedure and the institution, the Caisse Régionale observations submitted under Article 20 d'Assurance Maladie Rhône-Alpes, Lyon, of the Protocol on the Statute of the for the determination of her right to a Court of Justice of the EEC may be retirement pension. summarized as follows: The Rijksdienst voor Werknemers­ pensioenen (The National Pensions I — Facts and written procedure Bureau for Employed Persons), whose office is in Brussels and to which the

Mrs Marguerite Emilie Reboulet, nee application was made pursuant to Maris, wife of Roger Reboulet, a Belgian Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the national residing at Collonges-au-Mont- Council of 14 June 1971 on the d'Or (France), was an employed person application of social security schemes to successively from 1937 to 1941 in employed persons and their families Belgium, from 1941 to 1945 in Germany, moving within the Community (OJ from 1945 to 1947 again in Belgium and English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416) from 1947 to 1975 in France where she and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the has resided since 1947. Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation On 11 October 1974 Mrs Reboulet made (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ English Special an application to the competent French Edition 1972 (I), p. 160), by a decision of

On the other hand Article 84 (4) of The order of the Arbeidsrechtbank, Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Antwerp, was received at the Court Council provides: Registry on 28 April 1977. A material error in that judgment was rectified by a 'The authorities, institutions and judgment of 27 May; the amending tribunals of one Member State may not judgment was registered at the Court reject claims or other documents Registry on 6 June 1977. submitted to them on the grounds that they are written in an official language of In accordance with Article 20 of the another Member State. They shall have Protocol on the Statute of the Court of recourse where appropriate to the Justice of the EEC written observations provisions of Article 81 (b).' ('The were submitted by the Commission of Administrative Commission shall have the European Communities on 5 July the following duties: ... (b) to carry out 1977.

all translations of documents relating to the implementation of this regulation at After hearing the report of the the request of the competent authorities, Judge-Rapporteur and the views of the institutions and courts of the Member Advocate-General the Court decided to States, and in particular translations of proceed without any preparatory inquiry. claims submitted by persons who may be entitled to benefit under this regulation'). II — Written observations sub­ In these circumstances the Sixth mitted to the Court Chamber of the Arbeidsrechtbank of the judicial district of Antwerp by a The main submissions of the judgment of 21 April 1977 decided, Commission are as follows:

provision; the latter applies therefore to Conclusion any of the persons covered by the regulation. They are defined in Article 2 The following answer should be given to (1), (2) and (3) of the regulation, which the questions referred to the Court by does not contain any exception for the the Labour Tribunal, Antwerp: case of a person filing an application in a court of the Member State of which he is Article 84 (4) of Regulation No 1408/71 a national or persons residing in the takes precedence over any rule of territory of the Member State where the national law which is incompatible with application is filed. it. The authorities, institutions and tribunals to which it refers cannot when The purpose of Article 84 (4) of applying that provision treat their own Regulation No 1408/71 is to help nationals differently from other persons workers who avail themselves of freedom to whom that regulation applies. of movement within the Community to Likewise it is irrelevant for the overcome any linguistic difficulties application of that provision, whether the which they may encounter in the person concerned is or is not resident in exercise of the rights conferred upon the country where the application has them by the Community by allowing been lodged. them to express themselves in a language which they can use more easily than the language of the host country. III — Oral procedure

The Commission of the European Not only foreign nationals but also Communities, represented by Hendrik nationals of a Member State who have Bronkhorst, a member of its Legal lived for so long abroad that they have Department, submitted its oral less mastery of the language of the observations and its replies to certain country of which they are nationals are questions raised by the Court at the entitled to take advantage of such a hearing on 25 October 1977. provision. To ensure that the work of the courts of first instance is not made too The Advocate-General delivered his complicated Regulation No 1408/71 opinion at the hearing on 16 November provides for the setting up of an 1977.

5 In order to determine the compatibility of the said provisions with Article 84 (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 the Arrondissementsrechtbank has referred the following questions to the Court:

1. Whether the provisions of Article 84 (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 take precedence over Article 2 and the first paragraph of Article 40 of the

JUDGMENT OF 6. 12. 1977 — CASE 55/77

Law of 15 June 1935 on the use of languages in legal proceedings in respect of all persons to whom the regulation applies (Article 2);

2. More particularly whether the provisions of Article 84 (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 also apply to claims lodged with a Belgian court by a person of Belgian nationality who is a person to whom the regulation applies (Article 2);

3. Whether in this respect it is in any way relevant for the application of Article 84 (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 that the person concerned resides in Belgium or in another Member State at the time of lodging the claim in the Belgian court.

open to the authorities, institutions and tribunals of those States to limit its scope by reference to criteria based on the nationality or residence of the persons concerned.

11 Nevertheless it must be pointed out that Article 84 (4) only applies to claims submitted by persons to whom Regulation No 1408/71 applies and to the documents produced in support of their rights and does not apply to the general procedure, which remains governed by the domestic laws of each State.

12 It is for the very purpose of facilitating that procedure that the second sentence of Article 84 (4) provides that the courts hearing such actions may arrange for the Administrative Commission, in accordance with the provisions of Article 81 (b), to carry out all translations of documents relating to the implementation of Regulation No 1408/71 and in particular translations of claims submitted by persons who may be entitled to benefit under that regulation.

13 It must further be stressed that Article 84 (4) is only applicable for the benefit of workers who have moved between two or more Member States and of their

dependants and, furthermore, that the provision in question only relates to the procedures for the implementation of Community rules in the field of social security and thus to the exclusion of other disputes in which a worker may possibly be involved.

14 Without prejudice to any such considerations it must be concluded that Article 84 (4) does not allow any distinctions to be drawn on grounds of nationality or residence between those persons who are entitled to avail themselves of that provision.

Costs

20 The costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities, which has submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable.

21 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 national court, the decision as to costs is a matter for that court.

On those grounds,

THE COURT,

in answer to the questions referred to it by the Arbeidsrechtbank (Labour Tribunal) of the judicial district of Antwerp by a judgment of 21 April 1977, hereby rules:

A. Van Houtte H. Kutscher

Registrar President

OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE-GENERAL CAPOTORTI DELIVERED ON 16 NOVEMBER 1977 <1>

Mr President, provides as follows: 'The authorities, Members of the Court, institutions and tribunals of one Member State may not reject claims or other 1. This case arises from a reference for documents submitted to them on the

a preliminary ruling by the Arbeidsrecht­ grounds that they are written in an bank (Labour Tribunal), Antwerp, which official language of another Member seeks an interpretation under Article 177 State'. The questions submitted by the of the EEC Treaty of Article 84 (4) of Belgian court raise the problem of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the determining the range of persons covered Council of 14 June 1971 on the by that provision. application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families In the proceedings which are pending moving within the Community, which before the Antwerp tribunal, a Belgian

1 — Translated from the Italian.