Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions)

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Court of Justice of the European Communities (including Court of First Instance Decisions) >> Elisabeth Beerens v Rijksdienst voor Arbeidsvoorziening. [1977] EUECJ R-35/77 (29 November 1977)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/EUECJ/1977/R3577.html
Cite as: [1977] EUECJ R-35/77

[New search] [Help]

IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The source of this judgment is the web site of the Court of Justice of the European Communities. The information in this database has been provided free of charge and is subject to a Court of Justice of the European Communities disclaimer and a copyright notice. This electronic version is not authentic and is subject to amendment.

61977J0035
Judgment of the Court of 29 November 1977.
Élisabeth Beerens v Rijksdienst voor Arbeidsvoorziening.
Reference for a preliminary ruling: Arbeidsrechtbank Hasselt - Belgium.
Case 35-77.
European Court reports 1977 Page 02249
Greek special edition 1977 Page 00733
Portuguese special edition 1977 Page 00835

SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS - COMMUNITY RULES - FIELD OF APPLICATION - NATIONAL LAW OR REGULATION SPECIFIED OR NOT SPECIFIED BY A MEMBER STATE IN THE DECLARATIONS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 - CONSEQUENCES

THE FACT THAT A NATIONAL LAW OR REGULATION HAS NOT BEEN SPECIFIED IN THE DECLARATIONS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 5 OF THE REGULATION IS NOT OF ITSELF PROOF THAT THAT LAW OR REGULATION DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE FIELD OF APPLICATION OF THE SAID REGULATION ; ON THE OTHER HAND , THE FACT THAT A MEMBER STATE HAS SPECIFIED A LAW IN ITS DECLARATION MUST BE ACCEPTED AS PROOF THAT THE BENEFITS GRANTED ON THE BASIS OF THAT LAW ARE SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS WITHIN THE MEANING OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 .

IN CASE 35/77
REFERENCE TO THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY BY THE ARBEIDSRECHTBANK ( LABOUR COURT ) OF HASSELT FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THAT COURT BETWEEN
ELISABETH BEERENS
AND
RIJKSDIENST VOOR ARBEIDSVOORZIENING

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 69 OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1408/71 OF THE COUNCIL OF 14 JUNE 1971 ON THE APPLICATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY SCHEMES TO EMPLOYED PERSONS AND THEIR FAMILIES MOVING WITHIN THE COMMUNITY ( OJ ENGLISH SPECIAL EDITION 1971 ( II ), P . 416 ),

1 BY A JUDGMENT OF 16 MARCH 1977 , WHICH REACHED THE COURT ON 25 MARCH 1977 , THE ARBEIDSRECHTBANK ( LABOUR COURT ) OF HASSELT REFERRED TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE TREATY FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING A QUESTION ON THE INTERPRETATION OF REGULATION ( EEC ) NO 1408/71 OF THE COUNCIL .

2 THE QUESTION HAS ARISEN IN A DISPUTE BETWEEN MRS ELISABETH ERMIN , NEE BEERENS AND THE BELGIAN NATIONAL DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT CONCERNING THE PLAINTIFF ' S ENTITLEMENT TO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS .

3 THE PLAINTIFF LEFT THE NETHERLANDS AND TOOK UP RESIDENCE IN BELGIUM IN 1976 ON THE OCCASION OF HER MARRIAGE AND APPLIED FOR UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS , RELYING ON ARTICLE 69 OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 AND THE FACT THAT IN THE NETHERLANDS SHE RECEIVED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS UNDER THE ' WET WERKLOOSHEIDSVOORZIENING ' ( LAW RELATING TO UNEMPLOYMENT ALLOWANCES ).

4 IN THE NETHERLANDS THE RULES RELATING TO UNEMPLOYMENT ARE MADE UP OF THREE LAWS , THE ' WERKLOOSHEIDSWET ' , THE LAW ON THE COMPULSORY INSURANCE OF WORKERS AGAINST THE FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF INVOLUNTARY UNEMPLOYMENT , THE ' WET WERKLOOSHEIDSVOORZIENING ' , THE LAW LAYING DOWN RULES FOR PUBLIC ALLOWANCES FOR UNEMPLOYED WORKERS , AND THE ' RIJKSGROEPSREGELING WERKLOZE WERKNEMERS ' , A REGULATION ADOPTED PURSUANT TO THE ' ALGEMENE BIJSTANDSWET ' ( THE GENERAL LAW RELATING TO SOCIAL ASSISTANCE ); THE NATIONAL COURT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE LAST TWO LAWS ARE NOT SOCIAL SECURITY LEGISLATION BUT SOCIAL ASSISTANCE LEGISLATION , THE ADMINISTRATION WHEREOF IS ENTRUSTED TO THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND NOT TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTIONS .

5 IT HAS THEREFORE ASKED WHETHER THE NETHERLANDS LAWS RELATING TO SOCIAL ASSISTANCE WHICH APPLY TO WORKERS WHO ARE UNEMPLOYED ALLOW OF RELIANCE ON ARTICLE 69 OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 AND WHETHER PERSONS SUCH AS THE PLAINTIFF SATISFY ' THE CONDITIONS OF THE LEGISLATION OF A MEMBER STATE ( THE NETHERLANDS ) FOR ENTITLEMENT TO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE REGULATION RELIED ON , REGULATION NO 1408/71 , WITH ALL ENSUING CONSEQUENCES FOR THE TRANSFERABILITY OF HER ENTITLEMENT TO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS TO ANOTHER MEMBER STATE ( BELGIUM ) WHERE SUCH BENEFITS ARE INDEED SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS ' .

6 ARTICLE 4 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 PROVIDES THAT ' THIS REGULATION SHALL APPLY TO ALL LEGISLATION CONCERNING THE FOLLOWING BRANCHES OF SOCIAL SECURITY : . . . ( G ) UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS ' , WHILST THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH THEREOF EXCLUDES SOCIAL AND MEDICAL ASSISTANCE FROM ITS FIELD OF APPLICATION .

7 ARTICLE 5 OF THAT REGULATION PROVIDES THAT : ' THE MEMBER STATES SHALL SPECIFY THE LEGISLATION AND SCHEMES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 4 ( 1 ) AND ( 2 ) . . . . IN DECLARATIONS TO BE NOTIFIED AND PUBLISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ARTICLE 96 ' .

8 IN THE NETHERLANDS DECLARATION OJ C 12 OF 24 . 3 . 1973 ) THE ' WET WERKLOOSHEIDSVOORZIENING ' AS WELL AS THE ' WERKLOOSHEIDSWET ' ARE LISTED UNDER HEADING ' ( D ) UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS ' .

9 THE FACT THAT A NATIONAL LAW OR REGULATION HAS NOT BEEN SPECIFIED IN THE DECLARATIONS REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 5 OF THE REGULATION IS NOT OF ITSELF PROOF THAT LAW OR REGULATION DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE FIELD OF APPLICATION OF THE SAID REGULATION ; ON THE OTHER HAND , THE FACT THAT A MEMBER STATE HAS SPECIFIED A LAW IN ITS DECLARATION MUST BE ACCEPTED AS PROOF THAT THE BENEFITS GRANTED ON THE BASIS OF THAT LAW ARE SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS WITHIN THE MEANING OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 .
10 THIS MUST THEREFORE BE THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION REFERRED .

COSTS
11 THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS AND BY THE COMMISSION , WHICH HAVE SUBMITTED OBSERVATIONS TO THE COURT , ARE NOT RECOVERABLE .

12 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 , COSTS ARE A MATTER FOR THAT COURT .

ON THOSE GROUNDS ,
THE COURT
IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION REFERRED TO IT BY THE ARBEIDSRECHTBANK ( LABOUR COURT ) OF HASSELT BY JUDGMENT OF 16 MARCH 1977 , HEREBY RULES :
THE FACT THAT A MEMBER STATE HAS SPECIFIED A LAW IN ITS DECLARATION UNDER ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 MUST BE ACCEPTED AS PROOF THAT THE BENEFITS GRANTED ON THE BASIS OF THAT LAW ARE SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE SAID REGULATION .