C-93/81
ECLI:EU:C:1982:89
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61981CJ0093
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
J U D G M E N T O F T H E C O U R T (FIRST C H A M B E R ) 11 M A R C H 1 9 8 2 '
Institut National d'Assurance Maladie-Invalidité v Peter Knoeller (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Belgian Cour de Cassation)
(Social security — Completed periods of insurance)
Case 93/81
Social security for migrant workers — Benefits — Scrutiny of claims — Form E 26 — Legal significance — Supplementary information without a formal amendment — Permissibility (EEC Treaty, Arts 48 to 51; Regulation No 4 of the Council of the EEC, Arts 33 and 34)
The legal significance of Form E 26 must The said form is not exhaustive in the be appraised in such a way as not to sense that it does not preclude the infor- jeopardize the effectiveness of Articles 48 mation which it contains from being to 51 of the Treaty and the regulations subsequently explained or supplemented concerning the rights of migrant workers by official documents even if they do not in the field of social security. constitute an amendment of the form previously sent.
In Case 9 3 / 8 1
R E F E R E N C E t o the court u n d e r Article 177 of the E E C T r e a t y by t h e Third C h a m b e r of the Belgian C o u r de Cassation [ C o u r t of C a s s a t i o n ] , for a preliminary ruling in the action pending before that court between
INSTITUT NATIONAL D'ASSURANCE MALADIE-INVALIDITÉ [ N a t i o n a l Sickness a n d Invalidity Insurance Institution], Brussels,
and
I — Language of ihr Case: French
JUDGMENT OF II. 3. 1982 — CASE 93/81
PETER KNOELLER, of Obrigheim, Federal Republic of Germany, on the inter pretation of Anicie 34 of Regulation No 4 of the Council of the European Economic Community of 3 December 1958 on implementing procedures and supplementary provisions in respect of Regulation No 3 concerning social security for migrant workers,
THE COURT (First Chamber)
composed of: G. Bosco, President of Chamber, A. O'Keeffe and T. Koopmans, Judges,
Advocate General : P. VerLoren van Themaat Registrar: P. Heim
gives the following
JUDGMENT
Facts and Issues
I — Facts and written procedure institution"] which granted him such a pension under the heading Erwerbsun fähigkeitsrente [disability pension] with effect from 1 December 1967. Mr Knoeller, a German national, worked from 1927 to 1937 in Belgium where he was compulsorily insured. He then worked in Germany until 18 August 1967 on which date his employment was Pursuant to Regulations Nos 3 and 4 of terminated by his employer. From 19 the Council of the European Economic August to 1 December 1967 he was Community concerning social security registered as unemployed and received for migrant workers, the German unemployment benefits from the com institution forwarded to the Institut petent Arbeitsamt [Employment Office]. National d'Assurance Maladie-Imahditŕ (hereinafter referred to as "the Br run institution") a request for the grar .·» On 4 December 1967, Mr Knoeller proportional Belgian invalidity pc -.i>n lodged a claim for an invalidity pen To that end it forwarded to the hr .jr. sion with the Landesversicherungsanstalt institution Form E 26, prescribed . Jer Rheinprovinz [Regional Insurance In Article 2 (1) of Regulation No A , he stitution for the Rhine Province, herein Council of the European Ea K>mic after referred to as "the German Community of 3 December 19.- on
INAMI v KNOELLER
implementing procedures and sup- Mr Knoeller had not completed 120 days plementary provisions in respect of Regu- of work, or days treated as such, during lation No 3 concerning social security the six months prior to 1 December for migrant workers, on which even' 1967, the date on which the invalidity social security institution must state the pension was granted to him in the insurance periods recognized by its Federal Republic of Germany, and the national legislation. period of employment or periods assimilated thereto had come to an end on 18 August 1967.
Under Belgian law, an invalidity pension is granted only if, inter alia, the claimant Mr Knoeller lodged a complaint against has completed 120 days of work, or days the decision of the Belgian institution assimilated thereto, during the last six with the Tribunal du Travail [Labour months preceding the cessation of work. Tribunal], Verviers. The tribunal gave In the present case, in order to claim that judgment on 2 March 1972 finding as a pension, the claimant had to prove that fact that the applicant was in fact he had worked at least 120 days between incapable of working as from 19 August 1 June 1967 and 1 December 1967 (six 1967 and that the period from 19 August months). But the Form E 26 sent by the to 1 December 1967 was treated under German institution mentioned only the German law as a period assimilated to a period to 18 August 1967 and did not period of employment. The tribunal thus take into consideration the period of found that the requirements of Belgian unemployment as from that date. law had been satisfied and held that the Therefore, in the eyes of the Belgian applicant was entitled to the grant of the institution, the claimant was unable to invalidity pension from the Belgian satisfy the aforementioned condition institution. necessary to found the right in Belgium to an invalidity pension. However, the German institution, in two letters The Belgian institution appealed against addressed to the Belgian institution, that decision to the Cour d'Appel [Court dated 5 and 21 March 1970, stated that of Appeal], Liège, which, by judgment of the period of unemployment following 2 April 1973, fully upheld the judgment the occurrence of invalidity could not be appealed against. taken into account under German law for the purposes of an invalidity pension but that the insured was nevertheless The Belgian institution then appealed to considered as legally "insured" during the Cour de Cassation, which took the that same period. view that since the judgment of the Cour d'Appel was being criticized for having decided that it was not necessary to have regard solely to the statements made on In spite of those explanations, the Form E 26 provided for by Article 33 of Belgian institution, having regard to the Regulation No 3 and by Article 34 of provisions of Belgian law applicable by Regulation No 4, but that that form was virtue of Community rules, concluded intended for purposes of information and that Mr Knoeller was not entitled to the might be supplemented or explained Belgian proportional pension and main- subsequently and that, precisely for that tained its refusal, insisting on its own reason, regard should be had to the interpretation of the statements ap- explanations given by the German pearing on Form E 26. Indeed, accord- institution in its letters of 5 and 21 ing to the statements made on the form, March 1970. Considering that that
JUDGMENT OF II. 3. 1982 — CASE 93/81
ground raised a question of the interpre- Rules of Procedure, assigned the case to tation of Community law, the Cour de the First Chamber. Cassation decided by judgment of 6 April 1981 to stay the proceedings and referred the following question to the Court of Justice: II — W r i t t e n o b s e r v a t i o n s s u b - mitted in pursuance of A r t i c l e 20 of the P r o t o c o l "To determine the proportional on the S t a t u t e of the C o u r t invalidity pension due to a worker for of J u s t i c e of the E E C work done in Belgium must reference be made only to the information contained in Form E 26 provided for by Article 34 of Regulation No 4 of the Council of 1. The Institut National d'Assurance the European Economic Community of Maladie-Invalidité, after referring to the 3 December 1958 on implementing pro- facts of the case and to the relevant cedures and supplementary provisions in Belgian legislation and to the order respect of Regulation No 3 concerning making the reference by the Cour de social security for migrant workers or Cassation, submits essentially the may the said Form E 26 be supplemented following observations : or explained subsequently by other infor- mation?" Claims for benefit by migrant workers and the scrutiny of those claims under Anieles 26 to 28 of Regulation No 3 are The order making the reference was governed by Regulation No 4. Articles registered at the Court on 16 April 1981. 33 and 34 of that regulation provide that a form shall be used for the scrutiny of such claims which must, in particular, In accordance with Article 20 of the contain the detail and total of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of insurance periods and periods assimilated Justice of the EEC written observations thereto completed by the insured person were submitted on behalf of the Belgian under the legislation of each of the institution by Adolphe Houtekier, Member States to which he has been Advocate at the Belgian Cour de subject. Those articles also provide that Cassation, and by the Commission of the the sending of that form to the European Communities, represented by competent institutions of another its Legal Adviser, Jean Amphoux, acting Member State supersedes the forwarding as Agent, assisted by Georges Vander- of supporting documents and that the sanden, of the Brussels Bar. scrutineer institution shall enter on the form the details of the insurance periods or periods assimilated thereto completed under the legislation to which it is On hearing the report of the Judge- subject and must send the form thus Rapporteur and the views of the Avocate completed to each of the competent General the Court decided to open the institutions, which must determine the oral procedure without any preparatory rights which arise under its own inquiry. legislation, regard being had to the provisions of Articles 26 to 28 of the regulation, and which must also state the Bv order of 11 November 1981, the amount of benefit which the claimant court, pursuant to Article 95 (1) of the may claim, for those insurance periods
INAMI v KNOELLER
and periods assimilated thereto com- competent institutions. Forms E 26 and pleted solely under the legislation ap- E 27, far from being of value simply plied by it without application of the for information purposes, are official provisions of Anicie 27. Those articles documents which, pursuant to Article 27 further provide for the whole of that of Regulation No 3 and Articles 13 (1) information to be entered on the form (a), 33 and 34 of Regulation No 4, give together with an indication of rights of details of the actual periods of insurance appeal and the periods of time within or periods assimilated thereto recognized which they are to be brought. The form as such by the institutions of the Member must then be returned to the scrutineer States where they have been completed.
institution. For a consideration of the conditions for the acquisition of a right to receive benefits, only those insurance periods which are included on the form are valid, where the aggregation of the periods of insurance is necessary. On the other hand any period not included on In the present case Form E 26 did not Form E 26 or E 27 is not recognized as a state that the period from 19 August to 1 period of insurance, or period treated as December 1967 was to be deemed to such, by the relevant institution which be an insurance period or a period completed the Form E 26. assimilated thereto. Despite repeated
requests from the Belgian institution the German institution did not at any time amend Form E 26 and refused to forward a revised form. The Belgian institution was thus unable to include the By judgment of 6 June 1972 in Case period in question for the purposes of 2/72 Murru v Caisse Régionale d'Assu- aggregation since it was not indicated as rance Maladie de Paris [1972] ECR 333, such by the German institution on the the Court of Justice held that, in order form intended for this purpose. to ascertain whether and to what extent a period of unemployment may be assimilated to a period of employment for the purpose of determining the entitlement of a migrant worker to an invalidity pension, reference must be made to the legislation under which such The Belgian institution does not deny period was completed.
That complies that information may be given in with the principle laid down by Articles addition to Form E 26 and acknowledges 27 and 28 of Regulation No 3 and by that supplementary explanations as to its Article 51 of the Treaty which expressly terms are often necessary. Nevertheless, provides for the aggregation of all in its opinion, those explanations cannot periods taken into account under the replace Form E 26, when they are in legislation of the various Member States. summary form or too brief, as in the It is clear that the principle of aggre- present case, in particular when they gation of insurance periods would be concern periods which are not undermined if the Belgian institution, in mentioned in that document. In fact examining whether the conditions had Form E 26 is a document of prime been satisfied for the acquisition of a importance in this respect whose nature right to invalidity benefit, had to take and objective are to certify that there into consideration a period of have been insurance periods completed unemployment in Germany which cannot under the legislation of the various be taken into account in that State to
JUDGMENT OF II. 3. 1982 — CASE 93/81
calculate the invalidity pension, since it for the communication of periods of was subsequent to the occurrence of the insurance and periods assimilated thereto risk, and which cannot in any event be which each competent institution recog- taken into account for the fulfilment of nizes by entering them on the correct the conditions of insurance provided for form. That system guarantees that a in that country. period of insurance completed in a Member State other than the competent Member State is taken into consideration and the question whether such a period is valid must be determined by the institution applying the legislation under which that period was completed. If th* competent institution ignores the info: mation given on Form E 26, that entails In reaching a solution to the problem it great inconvenience for the insurance is therefore necessary to follow the institutions which must have precise guidelines of the case-law of the Court information available in order to be able of Justice on this matter, which emerge to determine whether the claimant from the judgment of 9 July 1975 in satisfies the necessary conditions for Case 20/75 D'Amico [1975] ECR 891 entitlement to benefits; those incon- where the Court held that "under Article veniences arise, inter alia, from the fact 51, implementing regulations must secure that incomplete or imprecise information for migrant workers aggregation . . . of may thus be given and that different all periods taken into account under the interpretations might therefore be laws of the several countries "; and from possible. the judgment of 5 December 1967 in Case 14/76 Welchner [1967] ECR 331 where the Court held that " . . . the term 'assimilated periods' means periods treated as insurance periods or, where applicable, as periods of employment, as defined in the legislation under which they were completed, in so far as they are In conclusion, the Belgian institution regarded by the said legislation as being considers that it is necessary in principle equivalent to insurance periods or to adhere to the information given on periods of employment" and "in Form E 26. Alternatively, if the Court particular, the phrase 'in so far as they should take the view that Community are regarded . . . as being equivalent.. .' rules do not prescribe the mandatory use shows that the regulation is also of a certain document and that another referring to the conditions under which document may be used the Belgian national law will regard a given period as institution considers it to be essential that being equivalent to insurance periods that other document should provide the properly so called". guarantees which Anieles 33 and 34 of Regulation No 4 were intended to secure in relation to the forms provided for in the context of the application of the EEC regulations. Furthermore, regard must be had to the relevant German legislation to determine whether the period completed by Mr Knoeller in Articles 33 and 34 of Regulation No 4 Germany may be regarded as an provide for the use of certain forms assimilated period.
INAMI v KNOELLER
2. The Commission of the European the judgment of the Court of Justice of Communities submits essentially the 14 May 1981 in Case 98/80 Romano v following legal observations: INAMI [1981] ECR 1241 in which the Court held at paragraph 20 that "it follows both from Article 155 of the Treat)' and from the judicial system created by the Treaty, and in particular by Articles 173 and 177 thereof, that The question raised by the Belgian Cour a body such as the Administrative de Cassation seeks to ascertain whether Commission may not be empowered by the forms drawn up by the Ad- the Council to adopt acts having the ministrative Commission set up by Regu- force of law. Whilst a decision of the lation No 3 of the Council of the Administrative Commission may provide European Economic Community are an aid to social security institutions, . . . exhaustive or whether they may be it is not of such a nature as to require supplemented by further information. those institutions to use certain methods The question therefore involves the or adopt certain interpretations when problem of defining the powers of that they come to apply the Community commission and the nature of its rules". That passage of the afore- decisions. Under Article 43 (a) of Regu- mentioned judgment merely confirms lation No 3 the Administrative Com- Article 43 (a) of Regulation No 3 which, mission is responsible, inter alia, for as has been seen, makes the settling all administrative questions and Administrative Commission responsible questions of interpretation arising under for settling all administrative questions the regulation and subsequent regu- and questions of interpretation, "without lations, without prejudice to the right of prejudice to the right of the authorities, the authorities, institutions and persons institutions and persons concerned to concerned to have recourse to the pro- have recourse to the procedures and cedures and legal remedies prescribed legal remedies prescribed under the under the legislation of Member States, legislation of Member States". According by the regulation or by the Treaty. to the Commission it follows that the powers of the Administrative Com- mission are limited to drawing up forms to facilitate the application of Community legislation or to giving advice on that legislation, but those Pursuant to Article 2 (1) of Regulation forms or that advice are merely of value No 4 models of certificates, certified for information purposes since the statements, declarations, applications and Administrative Commission does not other documents required for giving have in any event power to draw up effect to Regulations Nos 3 and 4 are to forms having mandatory force. be drawn up by the Administrative Commission which is thus responsible for working out the forms and models needed for the application of the provisions of the two regulations. Having said that, the Commission examines in detail Form E 26 and states that its purpose is to set out in a comprehensible manner the different periods during which the claimant has The powers of the Administrative been covered by insurance and to faci- Commission were clearly laid down by litate relations between the various
JUDGMENT OF 11. 3. 1982 — CASE 93/81
insurance institutions of the Member Treaty and of the regulations in the States. The purpose of the form in social security field. question if 'hus essentially to facilitate the pracr implementation of Com- The Commission proposes therefore that munity re ..tions in the social security the following reply should be given to field wnnout nevertheless being the questions put by the Belgian Cour de exhaustive. Its use is not an essential Cassation: formal requirement precluding other information or documents from being "Form E 26 like all other forms drawn obtained and the Belgian institution was up by the Administrative Commission, not entitled to attribute to it the status of establishes the framework permitting an such a requirement. exchange of information in implemen- tation of the regulations in the social security field concerning migrant More generally, the Commission states workers. That information may always finally that the powers of the be supplemented or explained by further Administrative Commission and the legal information." status of the documents drawn up by it must be interpreted in accordance with the objectives of the EEC Treaty; and Ill — Oral procedure that the objectives pursued by Articles 48 to 51 are intended to favour migrant At the sitting on 21 January 1982 oral workers by allowing them to improve the argument was presented by the incomplete rights which they have not following: G. Jacobs of the Brussels Bar, been able to perfect by means of their for the Institut National d'Assurance various periods of residence in the Maladie-Invalidité; T. Amphoux, acting Member States, and entail the elimin- as Agent, assisted ':•' G. Vandersanden ation of all obstacles prejudicing migrant of the Brussels Bar ir the Commission workers. In that context the strictly of the European Communities. formal interpretation which the Belgian institution wishes to give to the forms The Advocate General delivered his would jeopardize the efi ' ''e opinion at the sitting on 4 Februan. application of Articles 48 to 51 o¡ the 1982.
. .cisión
1 By judgment of 6 April 1981, which was registered at the Court on lb April 1981, the Third Chamber of the Belgian C o u r de Cassation [Court o! Cassation], referred to "he Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the E E C Treaty a question relating to the interpretation >>' Articles 33 and 34 of Regulation N o 4 of the Council of the Europea- Economic Community of 3 December 1958 on implementing procedures j r . : supplementary provisions in respect of Regulation N o 3 concerning soc:.. security for migrant workers (Journal Officiel, 16 December 1958, p 5°"i
INAMI v KNOELLER
The question seeks to determine whether the information entered on Form E 26, the model of which was drawn up by the Administrative Commission set up by Regulation No 3 of the Council of the European Economic Community, may be explained subsequently by other documents.
: The main proceedings concern a complaint lodged by Mr Knoeller, a German national who worked from 1927 to 1937 in Belgium and from 15 May 1939 to 18 August 1967 in Germany, against the decision of the Institut National d'Assurance Maladie-Invalidité [National Sickness and Invalidity Insurance Institution], a Belgian social security institution (hereinafter referred to as "the Belgian institution"), to refuse to grant him the pro- portional Belgian invalidity pension.
3 Mr Knoeller was incapable of working as from 18 August 1967 but it was only with effect from 1 December 1967 that an invalidity pension was granted to him, upon his application, by the Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz [Regional Insurance Institution for the Rhine Province], herein- after referred to as "the German institution". In the meantime, he was, nevertheless, in receipt of unemployment benefits in the Federal Republic of Germany. Under German law that interval in no way affects entitlement to the invalidity pension and was therefore not mentioned on Form E 26 which was forwarded by the German institution to the Belgian institution so as to enable Mr Knoeiler to acquire a right to a Belgian invalidity pension pro- portionate to the period of employment completed by him in Belgium. For the reason given above, that form merely mentions periods of insurance completed by Mr Knoeller until 18 August 1967, that is to say until the date of termination of his employment.
4 Having regard to the fact that under Belgian law a worker is not entitled to an invalidity pension if he has not completed 120 days of work or days assimilated thereto (such as periods of registered unemployment) during the six months preceding the cessation of work, the Belgian institution in the present case considered that, on the basis of the information contained in Form E 26, that condition had not been satisfied. In fact, the Belgian institution took the view that the information given could not be amended or supplemented by the letters of 5 and 21 March 1970 from the German institution in which it was explained that during the period of unemployment Mr Knoeller was legally "insured" under German law.
JUDGMENT OF 11. 3. 1982 — CASE 93/81
Following Mr Knoeller's complaint, both the Tribunal du Travail [Labour Court], Verviers, and the Cour d'Appel [Court of Appeal], Liège, ruled that the claimant was entitled to the proportional Belgian invalidity pension. The Belgian institution appealed on a point of law against the judgment of the Cour d'Appel, Liège, and the Belgian Cour de Cassation by judgment of 6 April 1981, decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice:
" T o determine the proportional invalidity pension due to a worker for work done in Belgium must reference be made only to the information contained in Form E 26 provided for by Article 34 of Regulation N o 4 of the Council of the European Economic Community of 3 December 1958 on implementing procedures and supplementary provisions in respect of Regu- lation N o 3 concerning social security for migrant workers or may the said Form E 26 be supplemented or explained subsequently by other infor- mation?"
Under Article 43 of Regulation N o 3 an Administrative Commission was set up with responsibility, inter alia, for settling all administrative questions and questions of interpretation "arising under this regulation and subsequent regulations". Article 2 (1) of Regulation N o 4 provides that that Commission is to draw up models of certificates, certified statements, declarations, applications and other documents required for giving effect to Regulations Nos 3 and 4. Form E 26, which is at issue in this case, was drawn up by the Administrative Commission in application of the provisions of Articles 33 and 34 of Regulation No 4. Anicie 33 is worded as follows:
"(1) For the scrutinv of the claims for benefits due, by virtue of Anieles 26 to 28 of the Regulation (defined as meaning Regulation No 3), the scrutineer institution shall use a form setting out the detail and total of the insured periods and assimilated periods completed by the insured person under the legislation of each of the Member States to which he was subject.
(2) This form shall be transmitted to the competent institutions of another Member State in place of transmission of the supporting documents."
INAMI v KNOELLER
Anicie 34 (1) of Regulation N o 4 is worded as follows:
"The scrutineer institution shall enter on the form referred to in the preceding paragraph the insurance periods and assimilated periods completed under the legislation to which it is subject, and shall send a copy of the said form to the competent institutions of each of the other Member States under whose legislation the insured person has completed such periods."
7 The Belgian institution is of the opinion that those provisions are to be interpreted as meaning that only those periods entered on Form E 26 may be taken into account. It does not deny that the German institution by its letters of March 1970 did supply the further information mentioned above, but maintains that those "supplementary explanations" cannot "take the place of Form E 26 as regards periods not mentioned in that document". In other words, whilst acknowledging that certain supplementary explanations may prove necessary, the Belgian institution nevertheless argues that such infor- mation may not be taken into account unless the scrutineer institution either amends the form or sends a fresh one as the Belgian institution had expressly requested.
« Having regard to the view taken by the Belgian institution, the Belgian Cour de Cassation raised the question set out above, by which it requests the Court, in substance, to rule upon the legal significance of Form E 26.
« In order to reply to that question, it should first be stated that Articles 33 and 34 of Regulation No 4, as well as the rules adopted by the Administrative Commission as regards the form in question, must be interpreted in the light of Anieles 48 to 51 of the EEC Treaty which the regulations in the field of social security have as their basis, their framework and their bounds (judgment of the Court of 5 July 1967 in Case 1/67 Ciechelski [1967] ECR 181). In fact those provisions are aimed at securing freedom of movement for workers within the Common Market by permitting them inter alia to avail themselves of rights arising out of periods of employment completed in different Member States. The legal significance of
JUDGMENT OF II. 3. 1982 — CASE 93/81
Form E 26 must therefore be appraised in such a way as not to jeopardize the effectiveness of those articles and those regulations concerning the rights of migrant workers in the field of social security.
ic Articles 33 and 34 of Regulation N o 4 must therefore be interpreted in the light of those principles. Article 33 provides that for the scrutiny of the claims for benefits due, by virtue of Articles 26 to 28 of Regulation No 3, the scrutineer institution is to "use" a form for the drawing-up of which the aforementioned Administrative Commission was made responsible, but that article does not preclude the giving of other supplementary information. Article 34 (1) of that regulation provides that the scrutineer institution, having entered on the form the insurance periods and assimilated periods completed under the legislation to which it is subject, is to send a copy of the said form to the competent institutions of each of the other Member States under whose legislation the insured has completed such periods. It is clear from these provisions that the procedures laid down are essentially intended to assist the social security institutions in the performance of their duties and to simplify the complex administrative operations of aggregation and apportionment in the various Member States involved. The scrutineer institution's duty of sending the form to the other institutions involved does not mean that any other supporting documents thereby lose all probative value with the result that it is no longer possible to rely on such documents to supplement or explain the form. The form is therefore not exhaustive in the sense that it does not preclude the information which it contains from being subsequently explained by official documents such as the letters of 5 and 21 March 1970 sent to the Belgian institution by the German institution. The institution to which it is addressed is therefore obliged to take into account the information contained in those documents even if that infor- mation does not consist of an amendment of the form previously sent.
n The reply to be given to the question raised by the Belgian Cour de Cassation must therefore be that the form provided for by Article 34 of Regulation No 4 of the Council of the European Economic Community of 3 December 1958 may be supplemented or explained subsequently by other information even if that information does not consist of an amendment of the form previously sent.
INAMI v KNOELLER
Costs
The costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities, which has submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. As the proceedings are, in so far as the parties to the main proceedings are concerned, in the nature of a step in the proceedings pending before the national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.
On those grounds,
T H E C O U R T (First Chamber),
in answer to the question referred to it by the Belgian Cour de Cassation, by judgment of 6 April 1981, hereby rules:
The form provided for by Article 34 of Regulation No 4 of the Council of the European Economic Community of 3 December 1958 may be supplemented or explained subsequently by other information even if that information does not consist of an amendment of the form previously sent.
Bosco O'Keeffe Koopmans
Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 11 March 1982.
For the Registrar
H.A. Rühi G. Bosco Principal Administrator President of the First Chamber