JUDGMENT OF 10. 12. 1969 — CASE 34/69 ASSURANCE VIEILLESSE v DUFFY
In Case 34/69 Reference to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Cour d'Appel, Paris, (Social Chamber), for a preliminary ruling in the action pending before that court between
THE COURT composed of: R. Lecourt, President, R. Monaco (Rapporteur) and P. Pescatore, Presidents of Chambers, A. M. Dormer, W. Strauß, A. Trabucchi and J. Mertens de Wilmars, Judges, Advocate-General: K. Roemer Registrar: A. Van Houtte
gives the following
JUDGMENT
Issues of fact and of law
I — Facts and procedures
II — Written observations submitted under Article 20 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice
A — Observations submitted by Mrs Jeanne Duffy
B — Observations submitted by the Caisse nationale d'assurance vieillesse des travailleurs salaries de Paris
C — Observations submitted by the Commission
1. The jurisdiction of the Court
2. The answer to the question
(a) The application of Regulation No 3 to the present case
(b) The scope of Article 11 of Regulation No 3
(c) The correctness of this interpretation in relation to Article 51 of the EEC Treaty
Grounds of judgment
Costs
I —. Facts and procedures
II —. Written observations submitted under Article 20 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice
A —. Observations submitted by Mrs Jeanne Duffy
B —. Observations submitted by the Caisse nationale d'assurance vieillesse des travailleurs salaries de Paris
C —. Observations submitted by the Commission
1. The jurisdiction of the Court
2. The answer to the question
(a). The application of Regulation No 3 to the present case
(b). The scope of Article 11 of Regulation No 3
(c). The correctness of this interpretation in relation to Article 51 of the EEC Treaty
1. By a judgment of 27 June 1969 which was received at the Court Registry on 30 July 1969, the Cour d'appel, Paris, has referred to the Court of Justice under Article 177 of the Treaty establishing the EEC, the question: Can Regulation No 3, concerning social security for migrant workers, especially Article 11(2) dealing with provisions for the reduction or suspension of benefit, apply as against a widow who is in receipt of an old-age pension obtained by virtue of her having worked as a wage-earner in one Member State and who claims in a second Member State where she has her permanent residence the survivor's pension acquired by her husband in the second Member State.
3. Under Article 4(1) of the said regulation it is applicable to wage-earners or assimilated workers who are or have been subject to the legislation of one or more Member States … , as also to the members of their families and their survivors.
4. From a comparison of that article with Article 11(2) it appears that the latter may apply to workers who have been subject to the legislation of a single Member State.
5. Under Article 11(2) provisions in the legislation of one Member State for the reduction or suspension of benefit where there is plurality with other social insurance benefits shall apply to a beneficiary even in respect of benefits acquired under a scheme in another Member State.
6. In order to define the meaning and scope of this provision it must be interpreted in the light of Articles 48 to 51 of the Treaty which constitute the basis, the framework and the bounds of the social security regulations.
7. Since those articles are intended to ensure the free movement of workers by conferring on them certain rights, to reduce the rights of workers without conferring upon them the compensating benefits prescribed in the regulations would be to depart from the purpose and framework of the said provisions.
8. In cases in which the regulations confer on workers social security benefits which they would otherwise be unable to obtain, limitations may be imposed on them corresponding to the advantages which they derive therefrom.
9. In the absence of such a counterbalance, such limitations cannot be justified since they would result in placing the worker in a situation less favourable than that which, were it not for the regulations, would follow from the application of national law or of the special conventions between Member States.
10. Consequently restrictions, such as those provided for or permitted by Article 11(2) of Regulation No 3 with regard to certain social security benefits, are only applicable to insured persons if they are in receipt of benefits acquired through the application of that regulation.
11. The costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities, which has submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable.
12. Since 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 d'appel, Paris, 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 observation of the defendant in the mam 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 Articles 48 to 51 and 177; Having regard to Regulation No 3 of the Council of the European Economic Community of 25 September 1958, especially Articles 4, 11 and 19; 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 European Communities, THE COURT in answer to the question referred to it by the Cour d'appel, Paris, (Social Chamber) by judgment of 27 June 1969, hereby rules: