JUDGMENT OF 12. 7. 1979 — CASE 9/79 KOSCHNISKE v RAAD VAN ARBEID

In Case 9/79 REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Raad van Beroep (social security court), Zwolle, for a preliminary ruling in the action pending before that court between

THE COURT (First Chamber) composed of: J. Mertens de Wilmars, President of the Chamber, A. O'Keeffe and T. Koopmans, Judges Advocate General: H. Mayras Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Facts

I — Facts and procedure

II — Summary of the written observations submitted to the Court

III — Oral procedure

Decision

Costs

I —. Facts and procedure

(a). …

(b). benefits are due in pursuance of Article 77 or 78 of the regulation. If, however, a pensioner who is entitled to benefits under Article 77 of the regulation, his spouse or the person looking after the orphans to whom benefits are due under Article 78 of the regulation, exercises a professional or trade activity in the territory of the said Member State, entitlement to family allowances due in pursuance of Article 77 or 78 of the regulation under the legislation of another Member State shall be suspended; where this is the case, the person concerned shall be entitled to the family benefits or family allowances of the Member State in whose territory the children reside, the cost to be borne by that Member State, and, where appropriate, to benefits other than the family allowances referred to in Article 77 or 78 of the regulation, the cost to be borne by the competent State as defined by those articles.

II —. Summary of the written observations submitted to the Court

III —. Oral procedure

1. In a letter from its President, received at the Court on 19 January 1979, the Raad van Beroep [social security court], Zwolle, referred to the Court a question concerning the interpretation of Article 10 (1) (b) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the Council of 21 March 1972 (Official Journal, L 74, p. 1), fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, as amended by Council Regulations No 878/73 (Official Journal 1973, L 86, p. 1) and No 1209/76 (Official Journal 1976, L 138, p. 1)

2. This question was raised in the course of an action brought by a woman of German nationality entitled to a Netherlands invalidity pension, who by virtue thereof was receiving a Netherlands family allowance in pursuance of Article 77 (2) (a) of Regulation No 1408/71, against the decision by the competent Netherlands institution to suspend payment of that allowance by virtue of Article 10 (1) (b) of Regulation No 574/72. The decision was based on the fact that the recipient's husband was exercising a profession or trade in Germany and was drawing dependent child benefits there.

3. The provision relied on withholds payment of a family allowance from anyone entitled to it as a result of an invalidity pension if his spouse, that is to say, his wife (diens echtgenote) according to the Dutch version of Article 10, exercises a professional or trade activity in the territory of a Member State where entitlement to family benefits is not subject to conditions of insurance or employment. Since the beneficiary's husband was receiving family benefits in Germany, the question whether Article 10 should be applied arose owing to the use of the word echtgenote [wife] in the Dutch version of that article.

4. Believing that this was a question of interpreting Community law, the Raad van Beroep referred the following question to the Court for a preliminary ruling:

5. In fact the wording of the provision in question, considered solely in the Dutch version, is capable of giving the impression that the term used refers exclusively to a person of the female sex.

6. However, the need for a uniform interpretation of Community regulations makes it impossible for that passage to be considered in isolation and requires that it should be interpreted and applied in the light of the versions existing in the other official languages.

7. A comparison with the other versions of the provision in question reveals that, in all the other versions, a word has been used which includes equally male and female workers (ægtefællen, Ehegatte, spouse, conjoint, coniuge).

8. This interpretation is borne out on the one hand by the purpose of the provision, which is to avoid the overlapping of family allowances for the same children and on the other hand by the principle of equal treatment for male and female workers in the field of social security.

9. The reply to the Raad van Beroep should therefore be that the expression diens echtgenote [whose wife] in Article 10 (1) (b) of Regulation No 574/72 includes a married man who is engaged in a professional or trade activity in a Member State and whose wife is entitled under the provisions of Article 77 (2) (a) of Regulation No 1408/71 to family allowances under the legislation of another Member State.

10. The costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities and the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which have submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable. 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 national court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.

On those grounds, THE COURT (First Chamber), in answer to the question referred to it by the Raad van Beroep, Zwolle, by a letter from its President of 16 January 1979, hereby rules:

1 The words used in the other languages are as follows: Danish: ægtefællen; English: spouse; French: conjoint; German: Ehegatte and Italian: coniuge.