JUDGMENT OF 12. 6. 1980 — CASE 1/80 FNROM v SALMON

In Case 1/80 REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the First Chamber of the Tribunal de Première Instance [Court of First Instance], Liège, for a preliminary ruling in the dispute pending before that Court between

THE COURT (Third Chamber) composed of: H. Kutscher, President, J. Mertens de Wilmars and Lord Mackenzie Stuart, Judges, Advocate General: J.-P. Warner Registrar: J. A. Pompe, Deputy Registrar

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Facts and Issues

I — Facts and written procedure

II — Written observations submitted to the Court

A — The Fund submits that the dispute turns on the interpretation of Article 28 (4) of Regulation No 3 which is worded as follows:

B — Mr Salmon states that the question referred to the Court must be answered in the affirmative.

C — The Commission first proposes that the question submitted by the national court, which invites the Court to carry out a direct review of the interpretation of Community law by a national court, should be re-worded as follows:

III — Oral procedure

Decision

Costs

1 In support of its argument the Fund quotes the following extract from the decision: The best benefit should be granted, either the national pension or the international pension calculated pursuant to Regulation Nos 3 and 4 of the EEC. Since the national benefit is in this case the higher, that is the one which must be paid as a benefit by virtue of Regulations Nos 3 and 4 of the EEC.