C-9/79

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (FIRST CHAMBER) OF 12 JULY 1979 <appnote>1</appnote>

Marianne Wörsdorfer, née Koschniske v Raad van Arbeid (preliminary ruling requested by the Raad van Beroep, Zwolle)

Case 9/79

1. Community law — Methods of interpretation — Texts in several languages — Uniform interpretation — Different language versions to be taken into account

2. Social security for migrant workers — Family benefits — Pensioners — Rules against overlapping — Spouse ofpensioner in receipt offamily allowances in another Member State — Spouse — Concept (Regulation No 574/72 of the Council, Art. 10 (1) as amended by Regulation No 873/73)

1. The need for a uniform interpretation 2. The expression "diens echtgenote" of Community regulations makes it [whose wife] in Article 10 (1) (b) of impossible in case of doubt for the Regulation No 574/72 includes a wording of a provision to be married man who is engaged in a pro­ considered in isolation but requires on fessional or trade activity in a the contrary that it should be Member State and whose wife is interpreted and applied in the light of entitled under the provisions of the versions existing in the other Article 77 (2) (a) of Regulation No official languages. 1408/71 to family allowances under the legislation of another Member State.

RAAD VAN ARBEID (Labour Board), Hengelo (Netherlands),

on the interpretation of Article 10 (1) (b) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regu­ lation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (Official Journal, English Special Edition, 1972 (I), p. 159),

THE COURT (First Chamber)

composed of: J. Mertens de Wilmars, President of the Chamber, A. O'Keeffe and T. Koopmans, Judges

Advocate General: H. Mayras Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

In pursuance of Article 77 (2) (a) of the other official languages of the Regulation No 1408/71, the plaintiff is Community includes both terms entitled, in pursuance of the legislation "echtgenoot" and "echtgenote" in a of the Netherlands, which is a Member single concept. <apnote>1/p State of the European Communities, to family allowances for three children, all under 16, residing with her and her Article 10 (1) of Regulation No 574/72, husband at Nordhorn. as amended by Council Regulations Nos 878/73 of 26 March 1973 (Official The legislation in question is as follows: Journal, L 86, p. 1) and 1209/76 of 30 April 1976 (Official Journal, L 138, p. 1), — The Algemene Kinderbijslagwet reads as follows: [General Law on family allowances] of 26 April 1962 (Staatsblad 160), several times amended (hereinafter "Entitlement to family benefits or family referred to as "the 1962 Law"); allowances due under the legislation of a Member State, according to which — The Kinderbijslagwet voor Loon­ acquisition of the right to those benefits trekkenden [Law on family or allowances is not subject to conditions allowances for wage earners] of 23 of insurance or employment, shall be December 1939 (Staatsblad 806) and suspended when, during the same period the Law of 26 April 1962 (Staatsblad and for the same member of the family: 161), several times amended (here­ inafter referred to as "the Laws of (a) ... 1939 to 1962");

JUDGMENT OF 12. 7. 1979 — CASE 9/79

or 78 of the regulation, the cost to By order of 8 May 1979, the Court be borne by the competent State as assigned the case to the First Chamber in defined by those articles." pursuance of Article 95 (1) of the Rules of Procedure.

On 12 April 1978 the applicant started proceedings before the Raad van Beroep, Zwolle, for the annulment of the above­ II — Summary of the written mentioned decision. observations submitted to the Court The matter was considered at the public hearing of the Raad van Beroep on 11 September 1978. It was subsequently The Government of the Kingdom of the decided in Chambers to refer to the Netherlands points out that, according to Court of Justice of the European its title, the purpose of Article 10 of Communities for a preliminary ruling a Regulation No 574/72 is to ensure that question on the interpretation of Regu­ the application of Regulations Nos lation No 574/72. 1408/71 and 574/72 does not give rise to a right to family benefits or family By a letter from its President which allowances during the same period or reached the Court Registry on 19 pan of a period under the legislation of January 1979, the Raad van Beroep more than one Member State. submitted the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: Having regard to the purpose of the provision in question it is of no "Must 'diens echtgenote' [whose wife] in importance whether it is the wife Article 10 (1) (b) of Regulation No ("echtgenote") or husband ("echt­ 574/72 also be understood to mean a genoot") who exercises a professional or married man who is engaged in a pro­ trade activity on the territory of a fessional or trade activity in a Member Member State whose legislation does not State and whose wife is entitled under make the acquisition of the right to the the provisions of Article 77 (2) (a) of benefits or allowances in question subject Regulation No 1408/71 to family to conditions of insurance or employ­ allowances under the legislation of ment.

The Commission then gives a summary of the Netherlands legislation applicable The purpose of Article 10 of Regulation to the case. No 574/72 is to avoid any unjustified overlapping of benefits. It is clear that the problem to which that provision The 1962 Law provides for a so-called relates may arise both when a male "national" insurance which, in pursuance worker is in receipt of benefits and hence of Article 7 thereof, grants family is entitled to family allowances in allowances to persons who are insured pursuance of Article 77 and as regards a under that law. All residents who have female worker. If the Dutch version is attained the age of 15 are insured and so taken literally and if therefore over­ are non-residents who are subject to lapping of family allowances is income tax by reason of a professional or prohibited only when a male person is trade activity pursued on Netherlands entitled in pursuance of Article 77, that territory within the framework of a would be tantamount not only to relationship of employment (Article 6 treating fundamentally identical cases (1)). differently but also to creating a difference in treatment between two cases according to whether a female or a In pursuance of the Laws of 1939 to male worker is involved. Such an in­ 1962 any worker resident in the terpretation would be contrary to the Netherlands is entitled to family principle of equality of treatment allowances for the first and second between men and women as expressed in children (Article 17). A person who is Article 119 of the Treaty and in the entitled to allowances by virtue of an Council Directive of 19 December 1978. incapacity for work amounting to at least 45% in pursuance of the 1966 Law is also deemed to be a worker within the Hence the conclusion must be that the meaning of the first-mentioned law (Article 8 B). As regards the condition of provisions of Article 10 (1) (b) concern both the cases referred to so that the residence it is appropriate to refer also to Article 1 of the Ministerial Decree of 20 expression "echtgenote" (wife) must be December 1969 by virtue of which a understood as meaning husband as well as wife. worker not residing in the Netherlands is however deemed to have his residence there if and so long as he is insured in pursuance of the 1962 Law. Furthermore the versions in the other languages have used terms which include both male workers and female workers. In approaching the question referred to The Court has already stated expressly in the Court the Commission emphasizes several judgments that the need for a first that the two Netherlands laws uniform interpretation of Community applicable in this case make the right to regulations makes it impossible for the family allowances subject to certain text of a provision to be considered in conditions. Hence there is no doubt, isolation but on the contrary requires according to the Commission, that that, in cases of doubt, it should be Article 10 of Regulation No 574/72 does interpreted and applied in the light of the not apply to this case. versions existing in the other languages

The German legislation on family Since Article 10 of Regulation No allowances is therefore of the type 574/72 no more provides the answer to mentioned in Article 10 (1) of Regu­ the problem of suspending benefits which lation No 574/72, so that that article are greater than those benefits with should be applied to Mrs Wösdörfer's which they overlap than does Article 79 case. the Commission is of the opinion that that article should also be interpreted In this instance it is the provision set out along the lines of the judgment of the in subparagraph (b) which applies, as Court referred to above. The competent Mrs Wörsdörfer's entitlement to family authorities in the Netherlands can thus allowances depends on Article 77 of suspend entitlement to family benefits Regulation No 1408/71. According to only up to the amount of the German the first sentence of Article 10 (1) of family allowances (Kindergeld) and Regulation No 574/72 the German must, if appropriate, pay the surplus to benefits should be suspended because Mrs Wörsdörfer. benefits are due under Article 77 during the same period and for the same children.

III — Oral procedure The second sentence, however, contains an exception to this rule where a person entitled to benefits under Article 77 of The Commission of the European Communities, represented by Auke Regulation No 1408/71 or — in Haagsma, submitted oral argument at particular — the spouse exercises a pro­ the hearing on 14 June 1979. fessional or trade activity in the territory of the Member State where there are no conditions of insurance of employment The Advocate General delivered his (Germany, in this instance). In such cases opinion at the hearing on 28 June 1979.

4 Believing that this was a question of interpreting Community law, the Raad van Beroep referred the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling:

"Must 'diens echtgenote' [whose wife] in Article 10 (1) (b) of Regulation No 574/72 also be understood to mean a married man who is engaged in a

JUDGMENT OF 12. 7. 1979 — CASE 9/79

professional or trade activity in a Member State and whose wife is entitled under the provisions of Article 77 (2) (a) of Regulation No 1408/71 to family allowances under the legislation of another Member State?"

5 In fact the wording of the provision in question, considered solely in the Dutch version, is capable of giving the impression that the term used refers exclusively to a person of the female sex.

6 However, the need for a uniform interpretation of Community regulations makes it impossible for that passage to be considered in isolation and requires that it should be interpreted and applied in the light of the versions existing in the other official languages.

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 on costs is a matter for that court.

On those grounds,

THE COURT (First Chamber),

in answer to the question referred to it by the Raad van Beroep, Zwolle, by a letter from its President of 16 January 1979, hereby rules:

The expression "diens echtgenote" [whose wife] in Article 10 (1) (b) of Regulation No 574/72 includes a married man who is engaged in a pro­ fessional or trade activity in a Member State and whose wife is entitled under the provisions of Article 77 (2) (a) of Regulation No 1408/71 to family allowances under the legislation of another Member State.

Mertens de Wilmars O'Keffe Koopmans