JUDGMENT OF 11. 3. 1965—CASE 31/64 SOCIALE VOORZORG v BERTHOLET

In Case 31/64 Reference to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Maastricht (Netherlands), for a preliminary ruling in the action pending before that court between

THE COURT composed of: Ch. L. Hammes, President, A. M. Donner and R. Lecourt, Presidents of Chambers, L. Delvaux, A. Trabucchi, W. Strauß (Rapporteur) and R. Monaco, Judges, Advocate-General: J. Gand Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Issues of fact and of law

I — Questions submitted to the Court

II — Procedure

III — Observations of the Commission of the EEC

1. As to the first question

2. As to the second question

Grounds of judgment

I — On the first question

II — On the second question

III — Costs

I —. Questions submitted to the Court

1. By judgment of 28 May 1964 the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Maastricht, requested the Court to give a preliminary ruling on the following questions:

2. The Maastricht court regards the following facts as established:

3. It appears from the file that before the Maastricht court the parties relied particularly upon the following submissions and arguments:

II —. Procedure

III —. Observations of the Commission of the EEC

1. As to the first question

A —. As a preliminary matter, the Commission points out:

B —. In favour of the immediate applicability of Article 52, the following arguments may be put forward:

C —. Against immediate applicability, it is possible to argue that:

D —. In conclusion, the Commission is disposed to defend the argument favouring immediate enforceability, for two essential reasons:

2. As to the second question

A —. This question does not require a reply unless the Court considers that the answer to the first question is in the affirmative.

B —. In the present case it is certain that the worker concerned cannot be regarded as a frontier worker within the meaning of Regulation No 36/63 (cf. Article 23 of that Regulation).

C —. It remains to be considered whether the field of application ratione personae of Regulation No 3 is limited to migrant workers stricto sensu, that is to say, to the worker who has been employed successively in more than one Member State or who works in one Member State whilst originating in another. The Commission considers that such is not the case and that it is proper to reply affirmatively to the second question from the Maastricht court.

I —. On the first question

II —. On the second question

1. A restriction of the field of application of Article 52 ratione personae cannot be construed from the wording of the provision itself.

2. It should still be considered whether Article 52 is not inapplicable ratione materiae, for the reason that accidents occurring in the circumstances described by the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Maastricht, are not industrial accidents.

III —. Costs

On those grounds, Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur; Upon hearing the oral observations of the Commission of the EEC and of the applicant; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General; Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, especially Article 177; Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Economic Community; Having regard to Regulation No 3 of the Council of the EEC concerning social security for migrant workers (Official Journal of 16 December 1958, pp. 561 et seq.); Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities; THE COURT in answer to the questions referred to it by the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Maastricht, by judgment of 28 May 1964, hereby rules:

I The provisions of the first paragraph of Article 52 of Regulation No 3 of the Council of the EEC concerning social security for migrant workers (Official Journal of 16 December 1958, pp. 561 et seq.) are applicable even before a bilateral agreement, as referred to in the second paragraph of that Article, has been concluded between the Member States concerned;

2 These provisions are applicable where a worker who, under the legislation of one Member State, is in receipt of one of the benefits mentioned in Article 2 of Regulation No 3 in respect of an injury sustained in the territory of another Member State is entitled to claim compensation for that injury from a third party in the latter State's territory;

3 It is for the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Maastricht, to decide upon the costs of the present proceedings.