JUDGMENT OF 13. 7. 1966 — CASE 4/66 LABOTS v RAAD VAN ARBEID ARNHEM

In Case 4/66 REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Centrale Raad van Beroep, being the Netherlands court of last instance in social security matters, for a preliminary ruling in the action pending before that court between

THE COURT composed of: Ch. L. Hammes, President, L. Delvaux and W. Strauß (Rapporteur), Presidents of Chambers, A. M. Donner, A. Trabucchi, 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 — Facts

II — Question put by the Centrale Raad van Beroep

III — Procedure

IV — Summary of the observations of the Commission of the EEC

Grounds of judgment

The question put by the Centrale Raad van Beroep

Costs

I —. Facts

(a). The plaintiff is the widow of a worker who died in Belgium on 23 February 1963 and who had been insured:

(b). Following the death of her husband the plaintiff in the main action made an application to the defendant, a social security institution, for a widow's pension under the Netherlands law concerning general insurance for widows and orphans (Algemene Weduwen- en Wezenwet, hereinafter referred to as the AWW) which entered into general force on 1 October 1959.

(c). By decision of 22 March 1965, the defendant dismissed the abovementioned application, on the twofold ground that:

(d). The plaintiff instituted proceedings against this decision before the Raad van Beroep, Utrecht, the court of first instance in social security matters.

(e). Nevertheless, the Raad van Beroep, by judgment of 26 July 1965, dismissed the plaintiff's application, in particular on the following grounds:

(f). The applicant appealed against this judgment to the Centrale Raad van Beroep

II —. Question put by the Centrale Raad van Beroep

III —. Procedure

IV —. Summary of the observations of the Commission of the EEC

(a). The judgment which the Court gave in Case No 100/63 (Kalsbeek nee Van der Veen): Rec. 1964, p. 1111 et seq.) set forth two principles which have to be reconciled, namely:

(b). In the opinion of the Commission, the judgment in the Case of Kalsbeek (née Van der Veen), together with Regulation No 130/63, cannot be interpreted to mean that the assimilation of the former Netherlands system to that of the AWW is limited to the case where there is simultaneous or successive affiliation to the two systems. Moreover this would be illogical as it was precisely for migrant workers that the said assimilation was provided; in fact, workers who have never left the Netherlands did not require it.

(c). If the social security institutions of the Netherlands did not apply Regulation No 3 to cases such as the present one, the persons concerned would only receive a very small pension under the previous Netherlands legislation. That legislation was modified several times in order to increase the benefits for which it made provision. It would have undergone other amendments for this purpose had it not been replaced by the system of the AWW.

(a). …

(b). for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of benefit payable under the Netherlands legislation concerning general insurance for widows and orphans, those continuation periods or periods of payment of premiums completed before 1 October 1959 under the Netherlands legislation on invalidity, old-age and survivors insurance (of wage-earners) shall be assimilated to insurance periods completed in pursuance of the legislation first aforementioned.

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; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General; Having regard to the Treaty establishing the EEC, especially Articles 48 to 51 and 177; Having regard to the Protocol on the Statue 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, especially Articles 27 and 28 and Annex G (III) (B) (b); Having regard to Regulation No 130/63/EEC of the Council of the EEC, amending in particular certain annexes to the said Regulation No 3, and especially Article 7 (1) (B) (b); Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the European Communities; THE COURT in answer to the question referred to it by the Centrale Raad van Beroep by a decision of that court of 16 February 1966,

1 The provisions of Annex G (III) (B) (b) to Regulation No 3 are also applicable in deciding whether there is, in accordance with Article 27 of Regulation No 3, a right to benefit under the General Widows' and Orphans' Insurance Law of the Netherlands;

2 The decision on costs in the present proceedings is a matter for the Centrale Raad van Beroep.