JUDGMENT OF 12. 11. 1969 — CASE 27/69 ENTR'AIDE MÉDICALE v ASSURANCES GÉNÉRALES

In Case 27/69 Reference to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Cour supérieure de justice of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Civil Appeals Chamber) for a preliminary ruling in the action pending before that court between

THE COURT composed of: R. Lecourt, President, R. Monaco and P. Pescatore, Presidents of Chambers, A. M. Donner, A. Trabucchi (Rapporteur), W. Strauß 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 and procedure

II — Observations submitted pursuant to Article 20 of the Statute

The first question

The second question

The third question

Grounds of judgment

The first question

The second question

The third question

Costs

I —. Facts and procedure

1. The Caisse de maladie des CFL (CFL Sickness Fund), and

2. The Société nationale des chemins de fer luxembourgeois.

(1). Is the concept of migrant worker, which appears in Article 52 of Regulation No 3 of 25 September 1958 concerning social security for migrant workers, applicable to a wage-earner (in the Grand Duchy), that is: to a wage-earner who has both his place of work and place of permanent residence in the Grand Duchy, but who, in the course of a pleasure trip has been involved in a traffic accident owing to the fault of a third party in the territory of another Member State, in this case in Belgian territory?

(2). Is Article 52 applicable when the person liable for payment of benefit does not institute proceedings before the foreign court but before his national court?

(3). Subparagraph (b) of the first paragraph of Article 52 makes provision for a direct claim in favour of the person liable for payment of benefit; what claim or remedy did the legislature envisage? May this claim be invoked without its having been the subject of a previous bilateral Belgo-Luxembourg agreement, the existing agreement of 16 November 1959 being limited to subparagraph (a) of the first paragraph of Article 52 concerning subrogation?

II —. Observations submitted pursuant to Article 20 of the Statute

1. By a judgment of 20 May 1969, Which was received at the Court Registry on 17 June 1969, the Cour supérieure de justice of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, sitting in judgment on an appeal, put to the Court of Justice three questions under Article 177 of the Treaty establishing the EEC, requesting the interpretation of Article 52 of Regulation No 3 of the Council of the EEC of 25 September 1958 concerning social security for migrant workers.

2. In its first question the national court asks whether the concept of migrant worker referred to in Article 52 of that regulation is applicable to a wage-earner who has both his place of work and place of permanent residence in the Grand Duchy, but who, as a result of private travel unconnected with his work as a wage-earner, has been involved in a traffic accident owing to the fault of a third party in the territory of another Member State.

3. Under the terms of Article 4(1) of Regulation No 3, the provisions of that regulation shall apply to wage-earners or assimilated workers who are or have been subject to the legislation of one or more of the Member States …, as also to the members of their families and their survivors.

4. The fact that the said provision even refers to persons who come or have come under the legislation of a single Member State shows that, far from referring solely to migrant workers within the strict meaning of the term, the regulation is applicable to any wage-earner or assimilated worker who finds himself in one of the situations involving international elements as provided for in the said regulation, as well as to his survivors.

5. In referring to persons in receipt of benefit under the legislation of one Member State for an injury sustained in the territory of another Member State, Article 52 of Regulation No 3 plainly refers to the persons mentioned by that regulation, more particularly by Article 4 thereof, in so far as these persons have sustained an injury in the circumstances provided for by the said Article 52.

6. To subject the application of that article to the existence of a connexion between the injury and the status of migrant worker would therefore amount to restricting its scope.

7. Consequently the provisions of Article 52 of Regulation No 3 are applicable even when the injury sustained by the worker has no connexion with his professional or trade activity.

8. In its second question the national court asks whether Article 52 is applicable when the person liable for payment of benefit does not institute proceedings before the foreign court but before his national court.

9. Article 52 makes any rights which the institution liable for payment may have against the third party liable for the injury dependent on the condition that the person who is in receipt of benefit is entitled to claim compensation for that injury from a third party in the territory of the State where the injury was sustained.

10. This condition does not imply that the institution liable for payment of benefit must only enforce the rights which it obtains under Article 52 before the courts of the States where the injury was sustained.

11. In fact Regulation No 3 in no way intended to alter the jurisdiction of the national courts with regard to actions concerning non-contractual liability.

12. Consequently there is nothing in Community law to preclude the application of Article 52 to cases in which the person liable for payment of benefit commences proceedings before his national court.

13. In its third question the national court refers to the direct claim provided for by subparagraph (b) of the first paragraph of Article 52 in favour of the person liable for payment of benefit and asks what claim or remedy the legislature envisaged.

14. It clarifies its question by asking in addition whether this claim may be asserted without its having been the subject of a previous bilateral agreement between the State in which the institution liable for payment of benefit is situated and the State where the injury was sustained.

15. By the general nature of its terms, the object of Article 52 is to secure the recognition by each Member State of any right of action pursued by the others in favour of the institution liable for payment of benefit against the third party liable, either by means of subrogation or any other legal method.

16. The provisions of the first paragraph of Article 52 are worded in peremptory terms.

17. Moreover, the said paragraph, in providing that any claims by the institution liable for payment of benefit against such third party shall be governed by the following rules, refers only to subparagraphs (a) and (b).

18. Those provisions are capable of direct application.

19. In providing in the second paragraph that Implementation of these provisions shall be the subject of bilateral agreements, Article 52 in no way makes the effect of the first paragraph dependent on the existence of such agreements.

20. The sole function of such agreements is to provide detailed rules for its implementation, where necessary, without however rendering the direct effect of the provision in question subordinate to them.

21. Consequently the fact that such an agreement has been concluded solely in connexion with the subrogation referred to in subparagraph (a) cannot limit the legislative scope of the part of the provision excluded from the agreement.

22. The costs incurred by the Commission of the EEC, which has submitted its observations to the Court, are not recoverable.

23. As these proceedings are, in so far as the parties to the main action are concerned, in the nature of a step in the action pending before the Cour supérieure de justice of Luxembourg, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.

On those grounds, Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur; Upon hearing the oral observations of the plaintiffs in the main action, the defendant in the main action and the Commission of the European Communities; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General; Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, especially Article 177; Having regard to Regulation No 3 of the Council of the EEC of 25 September 1958, especially Article 52; Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Economic Community, especially Article 20; Having regard to the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice of the Euorpean Communities, THE COURT in answer to the questions referred to it by the Cour supérieure de justice of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg by order of that court of 20 May 1969, hereby rules:

I Article 52 of Regulation No 3 of the Council of the EEC of 25 September 1958 is applicable to a wage-earner or assimilated worker who has both his place of work and place of permanent residence in one Member State but who has had a traffic accident in the territory of another Member State, irrespective of the reasons for his presence in the latter State;

2 Article 52 of Regulation No 3 of the Council of the EEC is also applicable where the institution liable for payment of benefit institutes proceedings before its national court;

3 The object of Article 52 is to secure the recognition by each Member State of any right of action pursued by the others in favour of the institution liable for payment of benefit against the third party liable either by means of subrogation or any other legal method. This right may be asserted even though it has not been the subject of a bilateral agreement as referred to in the second paragraph of the same article.