Odbor kompatibility s právem ES Úřad vlády ČR	I S A P Informační Systém pro Aproximaci Práva
	Databáze č. 17 : Databáze judikatury

ă Odbor kompatibility s právem ES, Úřad vlády ČR - určeno pouze pro potřebu ministerstev a ostatních ústředních orgánů


	Číslo (Kód CELEX): Number (CELEX Code):		61991J0111

	Název: Title:		JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 10 MARCH 1993. COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES V GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBURG. CHILDBIRTH AND MATERNITY ALLOWANCES - RESIDENCE REQUIREMENT - VALIDITY. CASE C-111/91.

	Publikace: Publication:		REPORTS OF CASES 1993 PAGES I-0817

	Předmět (klíčová slova): Keywords		SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS;FREEDOM OF ESTABLISHMENT AND SERVICES;RIGHT OF ESTABLISHMENT;FREE MOVEMENT OF WORKERS;

	Související předpisy: Corresponding acts:		368R1612;371R1408;157E052

	Odkaz na souvisejicí judikáty: Corresponding Judgements:		Cristini Case 32/75 Cristini v SNCF [1975] ECR 1085 · Sotgiu Case 152/73 Sotgiu v Deutsche Bundespost [1974] ECR 153 · Case 279/89 Commission v United Kingdom [1992] ECR I-5785 · O’Flynn Case C-237/94 O’Flynn v Adjudication Officer [1996] ECR I-2617 · Klaus case C-482/93 Klaus v Bestuur van den Nieuwe Algemene Bedrijfsvereniging [1995] ECR 3551 · Hughes Case C-78/91 Hughes v Chief Adjudication Officer [1992] ECR I-4839 · Newton Case C-356/89 Newton v Chief Adjudicaiton Officer [1991] ECR I-3017 · Giletti Joined Cases 379 and 381/85 and 93/86 Giletti and Others [1987] ECR 955 · Hoeckx Case 249/83 Hoeckx v Openbaar Centrum voor Maatschappelijk Wlezijn, Kalmthout [1985] ECR 973


	Plný text: Fulltext:		Ne

Fakta:
Luxembourg legislation provided for childbirth and maternity allowances which the Commission, under Article 169 of the Treaty, challenged as being incompatible with Council Regulation (EEC) 1612/68
Of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition (II), p. 475).
, Council Regulation (EEC) 1408/71
Of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as codified by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6).
and Article 52 of the EEC Treaty.
The childbirth allowance in question is split into three instalments. The first instalment (prenatal allowance) is paid when the mother-to-be has undergone the last of the medical examinations required by legislation and under the condition that the mother-to-be has been “officially resident” in the grand Duchy for a year preceding the birth of the child and that she has attended all the medical examinations required by legislation. The second instalment (childbirth allowance proper) is paid after the birth of the child if the birth has taken place on Luxembourg territory (or on foreign territory while the mother was absent on reasonable grounds), one of the parents has been officially resident in the Grand Duchy for a year at the time of the birth and the mother has undergone the postnatal examination. The third instalment. The maternity allowance is paid to every woman who is pregnant or has given birth, provided that either she has been officially resident in the Grand Duchy for the entire year preceding the beginning of her entitlement, or her husband has been officially resident in the Grand Duchy for three years preceding the entitlement. The allowance is paid on demand for a maximum period of sixteen weeks, beginning with the eight week preceding the presumed date of birth, as evidenced by a medical certificate.
The Commission contended that the residence requirement are discriminatory and thus incompatible with Community law.

Názor soudu a komentář:
The Court first examines the childbirth allowance in the light of Regulation 1612/68 and of Article 52 of the Treaty. Regulation 1612/68 in its Article 7(2) provides for the equal treatment of Community nationals with regard to,
inter alia,
“social advantages”. The childbirth allowance constitutes a social advantage within the meaning of Article 7(2) (see for the definition e.g.
Cristini
). While the residence requirement, being a facially neutral factor, is not overtly discriminatory, it constitutes a covert form of discrimination which, as the Court has consistently held (
Sotgiu
) is also prohibited by Article 7(2) of the Regulation. The requirement constitutes indirect (covert) discrimination because it is in practice more easily met by Luxembourg nationals than by nationals of other Member States ( Case 279/89; see also
O’Flynn
). Such covert discrimination can only be justified on objective grounds unrelated to any discrimination on the basis of sex. The Luxembourg Government contended that the residence requirement was thus justified on grounds of public health. The Court rejects this argument because the residence requirement is neither necessary nor appropriate to this objective: “Whilst the obligation to undergo certain medical examinations in the Grand Duchy is indeed appropriate in the light of that objective [i.e. public health], it is disproportionate not to take account of medical examinations that may have been carried out in other Member States.” It was doubtful, moreover, whether the residence requirement in fact served the purpose of public health because it was sufficient for the second instalment that the husband had been officially resident in Luxembourg prior to the birth. Similarly, the argument that the legislation sought to ensure that the medical examination take place under the supervision of a single doctor could not be accepted since the legislation in question did not in any way make such requirement and was thus inappropriate for that end. The residence requirement was therefore incompatible with Article 7(2) of Regulation 1612/68.
The Court goes on to find that the residence requirement for the childbirth allowance is also incompatible with Article 52 of the Treaty which, as emerges from the General Programme
General Programme for the Abolition of restrictions on the freedom of establishment (OJ, English Special Edition, Second Series (IX), p. 7).
, also prohibits any measure which hinders nationals of other Member States in their pursuit of an activity as a self-employed person by treating nationals of other Member States differently from nationals of the country concerned.
Turning to the maternity allowance, the Court confirms that it constitutes a “social advantage” as well and that consequently the residence requirement is equally incompatible with Article 7(2) of Regulation 1612/68.
The Court goes on to examine whether the residence requirement is compatible with Article 18(1) of Regulation 1408/71 which does not automatically follow from the assessment with regard to Regulation 1612/68 because the regulations differ in regard of their scope of application
ratione personae
. Article 18(1) of Regulation 1408/71 provides that the competent institution of a Member State whose legislation makes the acquisition, retention or recovery of the right to benefits conditional upon the completion of periods of insurance, employment or residence must, to the extent necessary, take account of periods of insurance, employment or residence completed under the legislation of any other Member State as if they were periods of employment completed under the legislation which it administers (see e.g.
Klaus
). The scope of application of Regulation 1408/71 is determined,
inter alia,
by the definition of “social benefit”. Whether a benefit falls within the scope of the regulation is to be determined with a view to its purposes and the conditions under which it is being granted. A benefit may be regarded as a social security benefit covered by the regulation “in so far as it is granted, without any individual and discretionary assessment of personal needs, to recipients on the basis of a legally defined position, and provided that it concerns one of the risks expressly listed in Article 4(1) of Regulation 1408/71” (
Hughes; Newton; Giletti; Hoeckx.
) The maternity allowance meets these criteria and therefore constitutes a social benefit in the meaning of the directive. The fact that the benefit is “non-contributory” does not warrant a different assessment because, pursuant to Article 4(2) of Regulation 1408/71, non-contributory benefits are expressly covered.
On the reasons put forward above with respect to the childbirth allowance, the residence requirement also in respect of the maternity allowance incompatible with Article 52 of the Treaty.

Shrnutí (Summary of the Judgment):
1. UN ETAT MEMBRE OPŐRE UNE DISCRIMINATION ů L' ENCONTRE DES RESSORTISSANTS DES AUTRES ETATS MEMBRES LORSQU' IL SOUMET LE VERSEMENT D' UNE ALLOCATION DE NAISSANCE ET D' UNE ALLOCATION DE MATERNITÉ ů DES CONDITIONS DE RÉSIDENCE PRÉALABLE SUR SON TERRITOIRE, CAR CES CONDITIONS SONT PLUS FACILEMENT REMPLIES PAR SES PROPRES RESSORTISSANTS. CETTE DISCRIMINATION DANS L' OCTROI D' ALLOCATIONS QUI, POUR LES TRAVAILLEURS SALARIÉS, CONSTITUENT DES AVANTAGES SOCIAUX EST CONSTITUTIVE D' UNE VIOLATION DE L' ARTICLE 7, PARAGRAPHE 2, DU RŐGLEMENT N 1612/68. ELLE EST ÉGALEMENT OPÉRÉE EN VIOLATION DE L' ARTICLE 52 DU TRAITÉ, PUISQUE, DANS LE CAS DES TRAVAILLEURS NON SALARIÉS, SI ELLE N' EST PAS OPÉRÉE DANS LE DOMAINE DES RŐGLES SPÉCIFIQUES RELATIVES ů L' EXERCICE DES ACTIVITÉS PROFESSIONNELLES, ELLE N' EN CONSTITUE PAS MOINS, POUR LES RESSORTISSANTS DES AUTRES ETATS MEMBRES, UNE GëNE ů L' EXERCICE DE CES ACTIVITÉS. SONT INOPÉRANTES POUR JUSTIFIER, S' AGISSANT DE L' ALLOCATION DE NAISSANCE, L' OBLIGATION DE RÉSIDENCE, DES CON
SIDÉRATIONS DE SANTÉ PUBLIQUE, CAR L' OBLIGATION DE SE SOUMETTRE ů DIVERS EXAMENS MÉDICAUX, ů LAQUELLE EST ÉGALEMENT SUBORDONNÉ L' OCTROI DE L' ALLOCATION, POURRAIT EN ëTRE DISSOCIÉE.

2. LA DISTINCTION ENTRE PRESTATIONS EXCLUES DU CHAMP D' APPLICATION DU RŐGLEMENT N 1408/71 ET PRESTATIONS QUI EN RELŐVENT REPOSE ESSENTIELLEMENT SUR LES ÉLÉMENTS CONSTITUTIFS DE CHAQUE PRESTATION, NOTAMMENT SES FINALITÉS ET SES CONDITIONS D' OCTROI, ET NON PAS SUR LE FAIT QU' UNE PRESTATION EST QUALIFIÉE OU NON PAR UNE LÉGISLATION NATIONALE DE PRESTATION DE SÉCURITÉ SOCIALE. UNE ALLOCATION DE MATERNITÉ DOIT ëTRE CONSIDÉRÉE COMME UNE PRESTATION DE SÉCURITÉ SOCIALE RELEVANT DU CHAMP D' APPLICATION MATÉRIEL DU RŐGLEMENT N 1408/71, ET DEVANT, COMME TELLE, SE VOIR APPLIQUER LES RŐGLES RELATIVES ů LA TOTALISATION DES PÉRIODES DE RÉSIDENCE ÉTABLIES PAR SON ARTICLE 18, DŐS LORS QU' ELLE EST OCTROYÉE, EN DEHORS DE TOUTE APPRÉCIATION INDIVIDUELLE ET DISCRÉTIONNAIRE DES BESOINS PERSONNELS, SUR LA BASE D' UNE SITUATION LÉGALEMENT DÉFINIE, ET QUE LES PRESTATIONS DE MATERNITÉ SONT EXPRESSÉMENT MENTIONNÉES ů L' ARTICLE 4, PARAGRAPHE 1, SOUS A), DUDIT RŐGLEMENT. PEU IMPORTE QUE SON OCTROI NE SOIT SOUMIS ů AUCUNE CONDITION D
E COTISATION, CAR L' APPLICATION DU RŐGLEMENT AUX RÉGIMES NON CONTRIBUTIFS EST PRÉVUE PAR SON ARTICLE 4, PARAGRAPHE 2.

Plný text judikátu (Entire text of the Judgment):