115 / 336
Case No. 73/1969 (1970) C.M.L.R. 409
The last curious case arising indirec'ly out of the
Agriculture Controls introduces us to the field of Crim-
inal Law. In the case of
Peeters v The Minister for
Finance
(1973) C.M.L.R. 190, the Belgian Court of
Cassation held that fraudulent export of butter from
Holland under Dutch Law designed to protect Dutch
Society was intrinsically different from the fraudulent
""Port of the same butter by the self-same act into
Belgium under Belgian Laws designed to protect Bel-
gian Society. Acquittal by the Dutch Courts of the
Dutch offence would not therefore prevent prosecution
Before Belgian Courts for the Belgian offence, as
the abolition of customs duties by EE.C. regulations
did not
ipso facto
abolish National procedural require-
ments such as import licences consequently the failure
to produce such a licence may lawfully justify prosecut-
ion under the national Criminal Law.
freedom of
Movement
Workers
The Section of the treaty dealing with free move-
ment of persons, services and capital is divided into
*°ur chapters. The first relating to workers, the second
l
o the right of establishment, the third to the supply of
services, and the fourth to the movement of capital.
There have not been many cases on the free circulation
of workers in itself, but there have been quite a number
a necessary corollary to free movement of workers
dealt with in Article 51 of the Treaty, namely their right
t 0
social security within the Community. Of the eases
w
«ere a State has endeavoured to restrict a National of
•mother member State from taking up residence, usual-
ly on the grounds of public order, the cases have gener-
ally taken the line that one isolated minor offence
does not constitute sufficient cause for the State to in-
voke the public order exemption. An interesting case
Bfs been referred by the English Courts to the European
~°urt for
a
decision as to whether the British Home
Secretary i
s
entitled to refuse admission to a Dutch
Scientologist who wishes to work at the Headquarters
of
the Church of Scientology in England. The case is
celled «
Van Duyn v The Home Office
", and involves
a
claim for a Declaration by a Dutch citizen who wishes
jo come and work In the College of Scientology in Eng-
j
a
nd, and who has been refused admission by British
Immigration Authorities, that he is entitled to a Declar-
ation of his entitlement to come to work in Britain—
s e
41/74 now reported in (1975) C.M.L.R. 1.
On 4 December 1974, the Court rejected the applic-
atl
on on the following grounds: —
The Court, interpreting Article 48 (3) EEC and Ar-
.
e
3 (1) of Directive 64/221, held (1) that Article 48
I
s
self-executing, (2) that Article 3 (1) of the directive
ls
self-excuting, (3) that current membership of and
p
a
rticipation in the activities of a frowned-upon organ-
nation may amount to 'personal conduct' within the
meaning of the directive, and (4) that such conduct
jjoes not have to be tainted with illegality before a
Member-State may exercise its discretion under Article
(3) and refuse a Community national entry into the
country.
Social Security
The general provisions of the Treaty and regulations
are that a worker is entitled to have taken into account
all contributions that he has made in any of the mem-
ber States but not to be entitled to accumulate bene-
fits from several systems of compulsory insurance re-
lating to the same period of insurance. This latter re-
striction is to be found in the 1972 regulation and may
affect an earlier decision in the case of
Old Age Pen-
sions Board of Parisian Salaried Workers v Duffy,
No.
34/1969 (1971) C.M.L.R. 391.
Madame Duffy had lived and worked in Belgium be-
fore her marriage and therefore had become entitled to
an old age pension from Belgium. She had married
Pierre Duffy who was a French National who had lived
and worked solely in France and therefore became en-
titled to an old age pension in France. When he died in
1965 she applied for a "reversionary" pension and the
French Insurance Fund declined to pay her a full pen-
sion but only paid her the difference between her Bel-
gian old age pension and what the reversionary pension
would have been. The Court held that in the particular
circumstances she was entitled to both pensions if en-
titlement o the benefits had been acquired independent-
ly of the E.E C. regulation 3 which has now been re-
placed by regulation 1408/71.
In the
Sotgiu
case, 153/73, not yet reported, the
Court held that an Italian worker who received a sep-
aration allowance because he was obliged to work at a,
place which was not his place of residence was entitled
to the same separation allowance as a German worker
who had to work at a place which was not his place
of residence. On the other hand in the
Kunz
case, 35/73
not yet reported, the Court has held that a person en-
titled to a pension under the legislation of several Mem-
ber States and who was resident within one of those
States has no right to benefit in kind from the State
within which he is resident when ihe legislaion of that
State does not provide for such benefits. (Holland does
not have a social security system which provides free
medical or dental services. Workers normally make vol-
untary contributions to a mutual sickness insurance
organization). In the
Manpower
Case, 35/1970, (1971)
C.M.L.R. 222, the Court held that a French worker
engaged by Manpower to work in Germany for three
days in August of 1969 was entitled to the benefit of the
regulations of the Community and that the French
Social Securi y Office should reimburse his medical ex-
penses to Manpower
In a similar case,
Nourrisson
(1973) C.M.L.R. 30, the
French Court of Cassation held that where a certifier te
of detachment which a French worker required when he
was sent to work in Belgium in order to maintain his
cover under the French Social Security system was ob-
tained by his employer but later cancelled because of an
irregularity in the application, the worker could not
lose his benefit, unless such cancellation has been noti-
fied to him, In the
Fiorini
Crse (1974) C.M.L.R. 300, an
Italian widow whose husband had lived and worked
in France, who had four children, the last two of whom
had been born in France, was held not to be entitled
to the reduced rates on French Railways allowed to
large families under the Act of 1924. The French Court
112