Report for the Hearing delivered in Case 388/87

I — Facts and written procedure

1. Mrs W. F. J. M. Warmerdam-Steggerda, a Netherlands national, worked as a pottery maker in Scotland from 17 March to 8 August 1975.

2. She carried on that activity as an employed person and was insured, under United Kingdom law, against the risk of industrial accident. However, because of her low earnings, she was not insured against other risks covered by the British social security system and, in particular, against the financial consequences of unemployment.

3. The reason for Mrs Warmerdam's stay in Scotland was that at the time her husband was undergoing a period of training there. When that training was over, she resigned from her position and, after touring through Scotland, the couple returned to the Netherlands on 30 August 1975.

4. On 1 September 1975 Mrs Warmerdam registered with the Gewestelijk Arbeidsbureau as a person seeking work and applied for the grant of unemployment benefits under the Werkloosheidswet (Unemployment Law).

5. By decision of 3 March 1977, the Bestuur van de Nieuwe Algemene Bedrijfsvereniging (Board of the New General Professional and Trade Association, hereinafter referred to as the Board) rejected her application on the ground that, during her period of employment in the United Kingdom, she had not been insured against the financial consequences of unemployment and could not therefore be regarded as a worker within the meaning of Articles 1(a) and 71 of Regulation No 1408/71 and that, consequently, she had no right to benefit under the Werkloosheidswet.

6. Mrs Warmerdam brought an action challenging that decision before the Raad van Beroep, Arnhem, which, by judgment of 8 September 1977, found in her favour on the ground that, first of all, for a person to have the status of worker, Article 1(a) of the regulation simply required the person concerned to be insured against one or more of the contingencies mentioned therein and, secondly, that Article 71(1)(b)(ii) of the regulation simply required the status of worker in general and not the status of worker insured against unemployment, so that Mrs Warmerdam, who was insured against the risk of industrial accident in another Member State, had to be regarded as a worker within the meaning of that regulation and was entitled in the Netherlands to unemployment benefits in accordance with Article 71(1)(b)(ii) of the regulation.

7. On 18 April 1978 the Board lodged an appeal against that judgment with the Centrale Raad van Beroep, Utrecht. In its appeal, the Board, contends, in the first place, that a person who is insured only for one branch of social security cannot be regarded as a worker within the meaning of the regulation as regards all the other branches of social security and, secondly, that Mrs Warmerdam, who has not completed any insurance periods in the United Kingdom, does not satisfy the conditions laid down by the combined provisions of Article 71(1)(b)(ii), 67 and 1(r) and (s) of the regulation, according to which periods of employment completed in another Member State can be aggregated only in so far as they are regarded in that State as insurance periods.

8. Taking the view that the dispute raised a question of interpretation of Community law, the Centrale Raad van Beroep, Utrecht, decided, by order of 8 December 1977, pursuant to Article 177 of the EEC Treaty, to stay the proceedings until the Court of Justice had given a preliminary ruling on the following questions:

9. The order of the Centrale Raad van Beroep, Utrecht, was lodged at the Court Registry on 30 December 1987.

10. In accordance with Article 20 of the Protocol on the Court of Justice of the European Communities, written observations were submitted on 28 March 1988 by Mrs Warmerdam, the respondent in the main proceedings, represented by M. Voets, Advokaat and Prokureur in Arnhem, on 29 March 1988 by the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, represented by E. F. Jacobs, Secretary-General at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on 30 March 1988 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by its Legal Adviser, Dimitrios Gouloussis, assisted by F. Herbert, of the Brussels Bar, and on 5 April 1988 by the Board, the appellant in the main proceedings, represented by W. M. Levelt-Overmars, Head of the Department for Legal Affairs and Social Insurance of the Gemeenschappelijk Administratiekantoor.

11. Upon hearing the Report of the Judge-Rapporteur and the views of the Advocate General, the Court decided to open the oral procedure without any preparatory inquiry.

12. By decision of 23 November 1988, the Court assigned the case to the Sixth Chamber pursuant to Article 95(1) and (2) of the Rules of Procedure.

II — Written observations submitted to the Court

1. The Board makes two preliminary remarks by way of introduction to its observations.

2. Mrs Warmerdam-Steggerda states, on the first question, that, in order to define the concept of worker in Community law, it is necessary to take into consideration Article 51 of the EEC Treaty and Article 1(a) of Regulation No 1408/71. Furthermore, it follows from the case-law of the Court (judgment of 19 March 1964 in Case 75/63 Hoekstra [1964] ECR 177) that the term worker has a Community meaning and does not depend on the national law of each Member State. That concept refers to all those who, as such and under whatever description, are covered by the different national systems of social security (judgment in Hoekstra). Mrs Warmerdam accordingly concludes that the term worker should be given a wide interpretation, that, according to the wording of Article 1(a)(i) of the regulation, it is sufficient to be insured for one or more of the contingencies covered by the branches of a social security scheme in order to be regarded as a worker within the meaning of the regulation for all the branches of social security covered thereby and, finally, that according to the wording of Article 71(1)(b)(ii) of the regulation, only the general status of worker is required and not that of a worker insured against unemployment.

3. The Government of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands considers the first question should be answered as follows:

4. The Commission states that there are a number of arguments in favour of an affirmative answer to the first question. In that regard, it refers to Article 2(1) of the regulation, which defines the persons covered by the regulation as a whole, the wording of Article 1(a)(i) of the regulation, in which the definition of the concept of employed person suggests that it is sufficient to be insured for a single contingency covered by the branches of a social security scheme applicable to employed persons in order to be regarded as a worker for the purposes of the application of the entire regulation and Article 4(1) of the regulation, which specifies that benefits in respect of accidents at work and occupational diseases constitute one of the branches of social security to which the regulation applies. Since Mrs Warmerdam was compulsorily insured in the United Kingdom against the risk of accidents at work, under a scheme applicable to employed earners, she can be regarded as a worker within the meaning of the regulation, all of whose provisions are therefore applicable to her in their entirety. Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest that Article 71 of the regulation either restricts or defines the concept of employed person. Accordingly, it is by reference to the provisions of Title I (General Provisions) of the regulation that it is necessary to ascertain whether or not the person concerned is one of the persons covered for the purposes of the application of the regulation in its entirety.

1 Language of the case: Dutch.