C-192/87

VANHAEREN v RIJKSDIENST VOOR ARBEIDSVOORZIENING

OPINION OF M R ADVOCATE GENERAL MISCHO delivered on 9 M a r c h 1988 *

Mr President, which the unemployed person first left but Members of the Court, the State to which he went and found employment.

1. The Arbeidsrechtbank, Tongeren, asks 6. That principle can be deduced very the Court whether Article 69 of Regulation clearly from the Court's case-law. In the N o 1408/71 remains applicable to an unem- judgment in Cochet1 the Court stated, as ployed person who was formally in salaried much on the basis of Article 13 of Regu- employment and who, having satisfied the lation No 1408/71 as on the provisions of conditions laid down by the legislation of that regulation concerning unemployment one Member State for entitlement to unem- benefits (Articles 67, 68, 69 and 71), that ployment benefits and temporarily retained the competent State in relation to social that entitlement to benefits in another security benefits is the State of employment Member State under Article 69 (1), returns and, in the case of an unemployed person, is to the first Member State after the expiry of the State where that person was last the three-month period provided for in employed (paragraphs 12 to 14 of the subparagraph (c) of that last provision and judgment). after having been in employment in the other Member State. 7. The Rijksdienst voor Arbeidsvoorziening submits that the argument to the effect that employment abroad, whether before or after 2. I share the Commission's view that the the expiry of the three-month period question must be answered in the negative. referred to in Article 69 (1) (c), puts an end to the applicability of Article 69 misin- terprets Article 69 (2) and (4) of the Regu- lation. The Rijksdienst points out that if this 3. First, the Commission is right to point were so, 'a single day of employment out that an unemployed person who goes to abroad, whether before or after the expiry another Member State and actually finds of the three-month period in question, work there is, from that moment, no longer would suffice to prevent the provisions of an unemployed person. Article 69 (2) and (4) from applying'.

9. If the person concerned again becomes It was not in that country that she last unemployed in the country to which he completed periods of insurance or went and where he found employment he employment. will in principle be able to enjoy for three 11. In view of the judgment in Di Paolo,2 in months the unemployment benefits of that which the interpretation given of the State after he has returned to his country of concept of residence was qualified, one origin. However, I do not think that that might also initially enquire whether the rule can be relevant in this case since Mrs derogation provided for in Article 71 (1) (b) Vanhaeren had not been registered as (ii) might not be applicable to the applicant unemployed in Germany before she in the main proceedings. In my view, returned to Belgium. however, that can hardly be the case in circumstances such as those in the main 10. It should be noted, finally as both the proceedings. Furthermore, the Court has in Rijksdienst and the Commission have the meantime delivered its judgment in pointed out, that after her return to the Guyot3 in which it declared, to my mind in country from which she came (in the a fairly categorical manner, that Article 71 present case, Belgium) the person concerned of Regulation No 1408/71 does not apply may not rely, in that country, on the to an unemployed person who during his provisions of Article 67 since she does not last employment was residing in the fulfil the conditions set out in Article 67 (3). Member State in which he was employed.

12. In conclusion, I suggest that the Court should reply to the national court in the way proposed by the Commission, that is to say as follows: