law://eu/cjeu/1981/c-227-81/hd_1_1_2_2@2026-11-12The appellant, Mr Aubin, submits that the principle that the conditions which must be satisfied in various Member States for the enjoyment of rights deriving from the contract of employment must be equivalent is a necessary consequence of the principle of the free movement of workers laid down in Anieles 48 to 51 of the Treaty of Rome. By vinue of that principle a worker's failure to satisfy in one Member State a condition imposed by the legislation of that State for the grant of benefits deriving from the contract of employment may not be held against him provided that he fulfils, in good faith, the same or an equivalent condition in a different Member State.According to the observations submitted on behalf of the appellant the principle of equal conditions is a means of surmounting the inconsistencies arising from application of different national laws whilst guaranteeing unity in interpretation and uniformity in the application of the principles of Community law. The rule on equal conditions is particularly apt with regard to questions of form such as the requirement of administrative registration or of enrolment. The condition of “good faith” attached to the operation of the rule excludes fraudulent registration or carelessness on the part of the worker.The appellant's view is that what is important for Community law is not the formal conditions concerning registration or affiliation which may be laid down by a State as a condition for obtaining a benefit, but solely the objective conditions of substance upon which the grant of the benefit depends. The Court stated its view to that effect in the Mouthaan decision (Case 39/76 [1976] ECR 1901) when it declared that “the status of worker within the meaning of Regulation No 1408/71 is acquired when the worker complies with the substantive conditions laid down objectively by the social security scheme applicable to him even if the steps necessary for affiliation to that scheme have not been completed”.The appellant concludes that the absence of affiliation in a Member State does not prevent payment of unemployment benefit, a fortiori when, as in the present instance, registration was not lacking but merely incorrect and the mistake was not attributable to the person concerned. The reply to the second question must therefore be in the affirmative.He further emphasizes that the principle of equity embodied in manv of the fundamental rights which are guaranteed under the Community legal order demands that he be paid the benefit to which he was entitled.The defendants ithe National Association and the Yvelines Association) state that there is no provision in Regulation No 1408/71 of the Council, apan from Article 69 which is not in question, to the effect that registration as a person seeking work in one Member State is considered as valid in order to qualify for payments under rules applicable in another Member State. The criteria for determining the link between the redundant worker and the State in which he has registered as a person seeking work and in which he resides have been laid down by Regulation No 1408/71. The adoption of any conflicting system would undermine the logic of the Community scheme established by the Council.The Commission considers that if it is established that unemployment benefit is payable by the Belgian employment authorities the second question has no purpose.In so far as it may be pertinent, the Commission points out that Article 86 of Regulation No 1408/71 or the Council (“Claims, declarations or appeals submitted to an authority ... of a Member State other than a competent State”) provides no assistance for Mr Aubin inasmuch as that provision does not enable registration as a person seeking work in Belgium to be considered sufficient to make the French authorities the competent institution when in the circumstances u is the Belgian authorities who are responsible for payment ot the unemployment benefit.Article 86 is intended to facilitate administrative procedure for the migrant worker who has addressed himself, not to the authorities of the competent State but to a corresponding authority in another Member State. In such cases Article 86 provides for transmission of claims between the national authorities concerned (Case 40/70 Costers [1974] ECR 1323; Case 108/75 Bahamo [1976] ECR 375).The Commission takes the view that the appellant may rely on that provision, however, first as against the French authorities so that they shall transmit to the Belgian authorities the claim for benefits lodged bv him (Case 143/79 Walsh [1980] ECŔ 1639), and secondly as against the Belgian authorities so that they shall consider the claim.The French Government invites the Court to hold that in the light of the terms of the Community provisions, in particular Articles 69 and 71 of Regulation No 1408/71, registration as a person seeking work in the State which grants and pays the unemployment benefit is a condicio sine qua non for the receipt of benefits.
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.