C-253/90
ECLI:EU:C:1991:349
- Súd
- Súdny dvor Európskej únie
- IČS
- 61990CC0253
- Zdroj
- eur-lex.europa.eu ↗
OPINION OF MR LENZ —CASE C-253/90
O P I N I O N O F MR ADVOCATE GENERAL LENZ delivered o n 19 September 1991 *
Mr President, survivors' pensions in respect of Community Members of the Court, nationals residing in another Member State, the Kingdom of Belgium had failed to fulfil its obligations under the EEC Treaty. Now the complaint is confined to the benefits mentioned in paragraph 2. 1. The case with which I am to deal now, like Case C-57/90, ' also concerns the infringement of both the principle governing Regulation No 3 and the regulations subsequently adopted that the legislation of 4. It should also be mentioned that it is a single Member State only is to apply and common ground in this case that as the the parallelism between the payment of benefits from which contributions are contributions for sickness insurance and the deducted are based on industrial agreements granting of benefits in that respect. they do not fall within the substantive scope of Regulation (EEC) N o 1408/71 ; 3 to that extent, therefore, Article 33, which provides that the institution of a Member State which is responsible for payment of a pension is to 2. As the Court is aware, the Commission be authorized to make deductions in respect has raised a complaint to that effect against of sickness insurance from the pension the Kingdom of Belgium because in that payable by such institution only in so far as country contributions towards the financing the cost of the benefits (under Articles 27, of the general health insurance scheme are 28, 28a, 29, 31 and 32) is to be borne by an also imposed on the recipients of institution of the said Member State, is not supplementary pensions or any other directly applicable. benefits replacing a statutory old-age or survivors' pension who, pursuant to Community law, are subject to sickness insurance in another Member State. 5. Analysis of the arguments put forward in these proceedings yields the following observations.
3. In that respect, it should be noted at the outset that the provision in question was originally applied generally. Its scope was then restricted by the judgment in Case 6. (i) The defendant in these proceedings, 275/83, 2 where it was held that, by too, challenges primarily the existence of deducting contributions from statutory the principle relied upon by the old-age, retirement, service-related and Commission, on the ground that it is not laid down in any Community measure. * Original language: German. 1 — Case C-57/90 Commission v France [1992] ECR 1-75. 3 — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 2 — Case 275/83 Commission v Belgium [1985] ECR 1097. 1971, consolidated version in OJ 1983 L 230, p. 1.
I-538
COMMISSION v BELGIUM
7. There is no need for me to devote the remarks already made in the Opinion in lengthy discussion to · that point; I refer to Case C-57/90. That is to say, it must be the Opinion in Case C-57/90, where all that remembered that Community law makes no was necessary was said regarding the fact distinction according to the nature of the that the principle invoked by the contribution, and it is significant, moreover, Commission has been established by the that the contribution at issue today is case-law in the light of Community legis governed by the same provision as the lation. It is, of course, irrelevant — I say contributions which formed the subject- this with regard to a particular argument matter of Case 275/83 (Law of 9 August put forward in this case — whether the 1963 in the version amended by the Law of existence of such a principle may be ascer 8 August 1980), which makes it reasonable tained in the legal orders of the Member to assume that it has the same legal nature States. aş those contributions.
8. It is necessary to add only that the 10. (iii) The same applies to the complaint defendant is wrong in considering that if that the Commission's point of view leads to such a principle did exist there would be no unequal treatment because only recipients of need to refer to it in Article 13 of Regu supplementary pensions residing in Belgium lation N o 1408/71 and that Article 33 of would be liable to pay sickness insurance the regulation, cited above, would be contributions. equally pointless. The fact that the principle in question is expressly mentioned in relation to the most important situations certainly does nöt justify the conclusion that it does not apply otherwise; such a 11. In that respect also, everything conclusion may not be drawn in particular necessary has already been said in the from Article 33, which refers only to Opinion in Case C-57/90. In particular, it pensions, since Regulation N o 1408/71 was necessary to agree with the view could scarcely mention contributions expressed by the Commission, which deducted from benefits which do not even indicated that even the application of fall within the substantive scope of the regu Articles 27. to 32 of Regulation N o 1408/71 lation. could put workers who failed to make use of their freedom of movement at a certain disadvantage, that Regulation N o 1408/71 is concerned not to maintain equal treatment of workers in general but to 9. (ii) In so far as the defendant, like the protect migrant workers against disad defendant in Case C-57/90, refers to the vantages that could arise from the special nature of . the contribution in application of more than one system of question (a solidarity contribution; a quasi- legislation. fiscal contribution) and draws attention to the characteristics that the contribution is not payable where overall income remains below a certain level and that family respon sibilities also play a role (thus the relevant 12. (iv) Finally, in so far as the defendant factors are unconnected with social security complains that the application itself refers but are typical of tax law), I would repeat only to Article 13 in conjunction with
I-539
OPINION OF MR LENZ —CASE C-253/90
Article 33 of Regulation No 1408/71 certainly mentioned in the grounds for the without mentioning either the general application. There can thus be no difficulty principle that the legislation of a single in determining the precise content of the Member State alone is to apply or paral- application, as it has been appropriate to do lelism, I perceive therein perhaps a certain on occasion in other cases, where the Court irregularity, but no ground at all to justify has taken the necessary steps to interpret the dismissing the application. The essential content of the application in its entirety (see thing is — as the defendant itself for example the judgment in Case 2/78 acknowledged in the oral procedure — that Commission v Belgium [1979] ECR 1761, at the abovementioned general principle is p. 1783).
13. (v) I therefore propose that in this case, too, the Court should declare that, by deducting sickness insurance contributions from supplementary retirement benefits or any other benefits replacing a statutory old-age, retirement, service-related or survivors' pension for Community nationals residing in another Member State under whose legislation they are entitled to sickness benefits, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71. The defendant in this case, too, should be ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.
I-540