Summary
Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
Keywords
++++
QUESTIONS REFERRED FOR PRELIMINARY RULING - NATURE OF QUESTIONS - NATIONAL LEGISLATION - INTERPRETATION - PENSION - CLASSIFICATION IN RELATION TO ANOTHER NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SYSTEM - LACK OF JURISDICTION ON THE PART OF THE COURT
( EEC TREATY, ARTICLE 177 )
Summary
THE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO GIVE A PRELIMINARY RULING ON THE QUESTION OF THE CLASSIFICATION UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF ONE MEMBER STATE OF A BENEFIT AWARDED UNDER THE LEGISLATION OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE, AS SUCH A QUESTION PERTAINS TO NATIONAL LAW ALONE .
Parties
IN CASE 93/75
REFERENCE TO THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY BY THE COMMISSION DE PREMIERE INSTANCE DU CONTENTIEUX DE LA SECURITE SOCIALE ET DE LA MUTUALITE SOCIALE AGRICOLE, PARIS, FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING IN THE ACTION PENDING BEFORE THAT COURT BETWEEN
JACOB ADLERBLUM, RESIDING IN PARIS,
AND
CAISSE NATIONALE D' ASSURANCE VIEILLESSE DES TRAVAILLEURS SALARIES, PARIS AREA,
Subject of the case
ON THE QUESTION WHETHER A PENSION AWARDED BY A MEMBER STATE TO A NATIONAL OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE AS COMPENSATION FOR INJURIES CAUSED BY PERSECUTION ON RACIAL GROUNDS IS IN THE NATURE OF A SOCIAL ASSISTANCE BENEFIT,
Grounds
1 BY DECISION OF 2 JULY 1975, RECEIVED AT THE REGISTRY ON 2 SEPTEMBER 1975, THE COMMISSION DE PREMIERE INSTANCE DU CONTENTIEUX DE LA SECURITE SOCIALE, PARIS, REFERRED TO THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY A QUESTION CONCERNING THE CLASSIFICATION UNDER FRENCH LAW OF A DECISION OF THE AUTHORITIES OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY PURSUANT TO THE FEDERAL COMPENSATION LAW ( BUNDESENTSCHAEDIGUNGSGESETZ ) OF 29 JUNE 1956 .
2 THE FILE SHOWS THAT THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MAIN ACTION, WHO IS IN RECEIPT OF AN OLD-AGE PENSION FROM THE CAISSE NATIONALE D' ASSURANCE VIEILLESSE DES TRAVAILLEURS SALARIES, WAS REFUSED AN INCREASE IN PENSION IN RESPECT OF A DEPENDENT SPOUSE ON THE GROUND THAT HIS WIFE WAS RECEIVING A PENSION FROM THE LAND OF NORTH RHINE-WESTPHALIA UNDER THE AFOREMENTIONED LAW OF THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY .
3 THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MAIN ACTION MAINTAINS THAT THIS PENSION, WHICH IS PAID AS COMPENSATION FOR INJURIES SUFFERED BY HIS WIFE AS A RESULT OF PERSECUTION, IS TO BE TREATED AS A BENEFIT GRANTED BY WAY OF SOCIAL ASSISTANCE AND THAT, AS SUCH, IT SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN THE ASSESSMENT OF RESOURCES FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE GRANT OF THE INCREASE IN PENSION APPLIED FOR .
4 IT APPEARS FROM THE FOREGOING THAT SINCE THE QUESTION RAISED BEFORE THE COMMISSION DE PREMIERE INSTANCE DU CONTENTIEUX DE LA SECURITE SOCIALE CONCERNS THE CLASSIFICATION UNDER FRENCH SOCIAL SECURITY LEGISLATION OF A BENEFIT AWARDED UNDER THE GERMAN COMPENSATION LAW, IT PERTAINS TO NATIONAL LAW ALONE AND THUS DOES NOT COME WITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE .
Decision on costs
5 THE COSTS INCURRED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, WHICH HAS SUBMITTED OBSERVATIONS TO THE COURT, ARE NOT RECOVERABLE .
6 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 COMMISSION DE PREMIERE INSTANCE DU CONTENTIEUX DE LA SECURITE SOCIALE, THE DECISION AS TO COSTS IS A MATTER FOR THAT TRIBUNAL .
Operative part
THE COURT
IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION REFERRED TO IT BY THE COMMISSION DE PREMIERE INSTANCE DU CONTENTIEUX DE LA SECURITE SOCIALE, PARIS, BY DECISION OF 2 JULY 1975, HEREBY RULES :
THE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO GIVE A PRELIMINARY RULING ON THE QUESTION OF THE CLASSIFICATION UNDER FRENCH SOCIAL SECURITY LEGISLATION OF A BENEFIT AWARDED UNDER THE GERMAN COMPENSATION LAW ( BUNDESENTSCHAEDIGUNGSGESETZ ).
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy