JUDGMENT OF 9. 12. 1965 — CASE 44/65 HESSISCHE KNAPPSCHAFT v SINGER

In Case 44/65 Reference to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Première Chambre Civile (First Civil Chamber) of the Cour d'Appel, Colmar, for a preliminary ruling in the action pending before that court between:

THE COURT composed of: Ch. L. Hammes, President, W. Strauß (Rapporteur), President of Chamber, A. M. Donner, R. Lecourt 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 submitted under Article 20 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC

1. Observations of the Hessische Knappschaft

A — With regard to the first question

B — With regard to the second question

2. Observations of Maison Singer et Fils

A — On the first question

B — On the second question

C — Conclusions

3. Observations of the Commission of the EEC

A — On the first question

B — On 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). Whether Article 52 of Regulation No 3 applies exclusively to migrant workers who are, or at the time of the event have been, employed in one of the six countries of the Community, or whether this provision, as at least the circular on social security of the Federal Republic of Germany of 15 February 1963 seems to recommend, applies to any worker affiliated to a social security scheme of any one of the six Member States of the European Economic Community, even if he is not a migrant worker and even if the accident which he suffered and which gave rise to the payment of social security benefits did not occur either during or arising out of his work

(2). If so, whether in these circumstances the social security agencies in each of the six Member States are entitled to claim, as from 1 January 1959, when Regulation No 3 entered into force, in the other such States the reimbursement of the benefits which they have paid to a person insured toy them who has suffered an accident in the territory of that other State before 1 January 1959 for which he can claim compensation from a third party under the civil law of that State, whereas, under Article 52 of Regulation No 3, each Member State of the EEC is obliged to recognize, as if resulting from its own laws, substitutions based on the national legislations of the other Member States and automatically having or having had effect from the entry into force of Regulation No 3, that is to say, from 1 January 1959 (Article 56 of Regulation No 3, as amended by Article 88 of Regulation No 4).

II —. Procedure

III —. Observations submitted under Article 20 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC

1. Observations of the Hessische Knappschaft

A —. With regard to the first question

B —. With regard to the second question

2. Observations of Maison Singer et Fils

A —. On the first question

(a). It is claimed that this submission is admissible under Article 184; in particular, Maison Singer is party to proceedings in which a regulation of the Council or of the Commission is in issue.

(b). The submission is also well-founded: in fact, by adopting the provision in dispute, the Council of the EEC acted ultra vires by exceeding the powers conferred upon it by Article 51 of the EEC Treaty:

B —. On the second question

C —. Conclusions

1. Declare that Maison Singer et Fils are entitled, by virtue of Articles 173 and 184 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, to claim that Article 52 of Regulation No 3 concerning social security for migrant workers does not apply;

2. Declare that this submission is well founded and rule that Article 52 of Regulation No 3 is consequently in-applicable:

3. Consequently rule that the two questions in the decision of the Cour d'Appel, Colmar, of 1 June 1965 requesting an interpretation are without purpose;

4. Alternatively, with regard to the second question, rule that Article 52 of Regulation No 3 does not apply to an accident occurring before 1 January 1959;

5. Give an appropriate ruling as to the costs.

3. Observations of the Commission of the EEC

A —. On the first question

B —. On the second question

I —. On the first question

II —. On the second question

III —. Costs

On those grounds, Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur; Upon hearing the observations of the Commission of the EEC and the parties to the main action; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General; Having regard to the Treaty establishing the EEC, especially Article 177; Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the EEC, especially Article 20; Having regard to Regulation No 3 of the Council of the EEC concerning social security for migrant workers (Official Journal of 16 December 1958, p. 561 et seq.), especially Articles 52 and 53; Having regard to Regulation No 4 of the Council of the EEC on implementing procedures and supplementary provisions in respect of Regulation No 3 concerning social security for migrant workers (Official Journal of 16 December 1958, p. 597 et seq.), especially Article 88; Having regard to the judgment of the Court of 11 March 1965 in Case 33/64; 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 First Civil Chamber of the Cour d'Appel, Colmar, by a decision of the said Chamber of 1 June 1965, hereby rules:

I The reply to the first question of the Cour d'Appel, Colmar, follows from the judgment of the Court of 11 March 1965 in Case 33/64;

2 Article 52 of Regulation No 3 of the Council of the EEC concerning social security for migrant workers entitles the social security institutions of a Member State to bring an action, under the conditions laid down therein, for the reimbursement of benefit paid by them in respect of an accident occurring before 1 January 1959;

3 The decision on the costs of these proceedings is a matter for the Cour d'Appel, Colmar.