JUDGMENT OF 5. 12. 1967 — CASE 19/67 SOCIALE VERZEKERINGSBANK v VAN DER VECHT

In Case 19/67 Reference to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Centrale Raad van Beroep for a preliminary ruling in the action pending before that court between

THE COURT composed of: R. Lecourt, President, A. M. Donner, President of Chamber, (Rapporteur), A. Trabucchi, R. Monaco and J. Mertens de Wilmars, Judges, Advocate-General: J. Gand Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Issues of fact and of law

I — Facts

II — Observations submitted under Article 20 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice

Grounds of judgment

Costs

I —. Facts

(1). Is a worker, who is engaged solely to work in the territory of a Member State other than that in which he resides and in which the undertaking which employs him is established and who. in order to carry out this work, is conveyed daily by and at the expense of his employer to and from the territory of the former State, employed in the territory of this Member State within the meaning of Article 12 of Regulation No 3, even during the time in which he is being conveyed to this State and, in particular, during that part of the journey which takes place in the territory of the Member State in which he resides and in which the undertaking is established?

(2). Does not Article 12 of Regulation No 3 prevent a worker who, by virtue of this article, is subject to the statutory accident insurance scheme of the Member State in whose territory he is employed from benefiting simultaneously from the comparable statutory accident insurance scheme of the Member State in whose territory he resides and where the undertaking which employs him is established, when the relevant legislation of the latter Member State provides for a (statutory) insurance scheme for a worker employed outside the territory of this Member State and when as a result on the one hand the worker in question might be entitled in principle to claim damages in both Member States, even though on the other hand contributions must be paid on his behalf in both Member States?

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

(1). Article 13 (a) of Regulation No 3, as worded at that time, provides that:

(2). As regards the interpretation of Article 12, the second part of the first question raises the problem whether a worker may be considered as being employed, within the meaning of this article, in the territory of the country in which he permanently resides when an accident occurs in this territory during transport at the employer's expense to his place of employment.

(3). As regards the Centrale Raad van Beroep's question whether a court in a Member State is bound by a decision taken by the Administrative Commission — a question concerning the interpretation of Article 43 of Regulation No 3 — the Commission of the European Communities states:

(4). As the Netherlands legislation providing for a compulsory insurance scheme in respect of industrial accidents for workers employed outside the Netherlands already applies to the defendant, the court referring the matter asked whether the Netherlands legislation may also be applied at the same time and in addition to the relevant Belgian legislation, should the latter be applicable under Article 12 of Regulation No 3.

On those grounds, Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur; Upon hearing the oral observations of the parties to the main action and 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 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, especially Articles 12, 13 and 43, and Regulation No 24/64 of the Council; 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 Centrale Raad van Beroep by order of that court dated 10 February 1967, hereby rules:

I A worker who is employed in the territory of one Member State but who resides in the territory of another Member State and who is conveyed at his employer's expense between bis place of residence and bis place of employment remains subject to the legislation of the former State by virtue of Article 12 of Regulation No 3, even as regards that part of the journey which takes place in the territory of the State in which he resides and in which the undertaking is established;

2 Article 12 of Regulation No 3 prohibits a Member State other than that in whose territory a worker is employed from applying its social security legislation to such worker where to do so would lead to an increase in the charges born by wage-earners or their employers, without any corresponding supplementary protection by way of social security;

3 Decisions taken by the Administrative Commission in pursuance of Article 43 (a) of Regulation No 3 are not binding on national courts or tribunals;

4 Article 13 (a) of Regulation No 3, as worded prior to the introduction of Regulation No 24 / 64, applies to a worker who is engaged solely for employment in the territory of a Member State other than that in which the establishment to which he is normally attached is situated, in so far as the probable duration of his employment in the territory of the former State does not exceed twelve months;

5 The expression the probable duration of their employment used in Article 13 (a), as worded prior to the introduction of Regulation No 24/64, refers to the duration of the employment of each individual worker;

6 The decision as to costs is a matter for the Centrale Raad van Beroep.