JUDGMENT OF 18. 2. 1975 — CASE 66/74 FARRAUTO v BAU-BERUFSGENOSSENSCHAFT

In Case 66/74 Reference to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Bundessozialgericht for a preliminary ruling in the action pending before that Court between

THE COURT composed of: R. Lecourt, President, J. Mertens de Wilmars and Lord Mackenzie Stuart, Presidents of Chambers, A. M. Donner, R. Monaco, P. Pescatore, H. Kutscher, M. Sørensen (Rapporteur), and A. O'Keeffe, Judges Advocate-General: A. Trabucchi Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Facts

I — Facts and procedure

II — Written observations submitted to the Court

Law

Costs

I —. Facts and procedure

1. The plaintiff in the main action, who is an Italian national and resident in Italy after having worked in Germany, applied to the defendant, an industrial social insurance body in the building sector in Wuppertal, for the restoration of an accident pension which he had previously received for a limited period. By a decision dated 12 January 1971 the defendant rejected the plaintiff's application and the copy of this decision was sent to the defendant on 26 January 1971 by registered post with a form for acknowledgment of receipt. The letter was delivered to the plaintiff on 29 January 1971.

2. An appeal was made to the Bundessozialgericht against the decision of the Landessozialgericht. Before giving a decision the Bundessozialgericht stayed the proceedings and referred the case under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on how the word directly in Article 56 (2) of Regulation No 4 implementing and supplementing Regulation No 3 of the Council of the European Economic Community on social security for migrant workers should be interpreted'.

3. It appears from the grounds of the order of reference of the Bundessozialgericht that there is conflicting case-law among the Landesgerichte.

4. The order of reference of the Bundessozialgericht dated 22 August 1974 was registered at the Court on 13 September 1974.

II —. Written observations submitted to the Court

1. By order dated 22 August 1974, filed at the Court on 13 September 1974, the Bundessozialgericht referred a question under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty on the interpretation of the word directly in Article 56 (2) of Regulation No 4 of the Council (OJ No 30 of 16. 12.1958, p. 597) implementing and supplementing Regulation No 3 on social security for migrant workers.

2. This question was raised in an action by an Italian national, resident in Italy after having worked in Germany, who was refused further payment of an accident pension by a German industrial social insurance body.

3. Article 56 (2) of Regulation No 4, in force at the time, referring to the case where a worker who is resident in the territory of one Member State has applied for a pension from an institution of another Member State, provided that the competent institution should notify the claimant of its decision directly and send a copy to the liaison body of the country in which the claimant lives.

4. Such an interpretation, which cannot be inferred from the wording of the provision in question, is not in accordance with the objective and purpose of the provision in the context of Community rules on social security for workers.

5. In answer to the question raised it is therefor right to say that the word directly in Article 56 (2) of Regulation No 4 of the Council must be interpreted as meaning that the notification referred to in the provision must be effected without an intermediary and that despatch by the postal and telecommunication services meets this condition.

6. A special problem concerning legal certainty may arise if the decision is notified to the person concerned in a language which he does not understand.

7. The costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities, which has submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable, and as these proceedings are, insofar as the parties to the main action are concerned, a step in the action before the national court, costs are a matter for that court.

On these grounds, THE COURT in answer to the question referred to it by the Bundessozialgericht by order of that court dated 22 August 1974, hereby rules:

1 Article 56 (1) of Regulation No 4 implementing and supplementing Regulation No 3 provided that the victim of an accident at work or of an occupational disease claiming an invalidity pension should address his claim either to the competent institution or to the institution of the district where he lived, which would forward it to the competent institution.