JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Appeal Chamber)
5 October 2009
Case T-58/08 P
Commission of the European Communities
v
Anton Pieter Roodhuijzen
(Appeal – Civil service – Officials – Social security – Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme – Insurance cover for unmarried partner)
Appeal: against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 27 November 2007 in Case F‑122/06 Roodhuijzen v Commission [2007] ECR-SC I-A-1-0000 and II-A-1-0000 seeking to have that judgment set aside.
Held: The appeal is dismissed. The Commission of the European Communities is ordered to pay its own costs and those incurred by Mr Anton Pieter Roodhuijzen in the course of the present proceedings.
Summary
1. Procedure – Actions – Jurisdiction of the Community judicature – Limits – Prohibition on ruling ultra petita
2. Officials – Social security – Sickness insurance – Scope ratione personae – Unmarried partner of an official – Concept – Jurisdiction of the Community judicature to interpret it
(Staff Regulations, Art. 72(1); Annex VII, Art. 1(2)(c)(ii))
3. Community law – Interpretation – Principles – Independent interpretation – Limits – Reference in certain cases to the law of the Member States
4. Officials – Social security – Sickness insurance – Scope ratione personae – Unmarried partner of an official – Concept – Independent concept used in the Staff Regulations
(Staff Regulations, Art. 72(1); Annex VII, Art. 1(2)(c)(i))
1. Since a Community Court before which an action for annulment has been brought cannot rule ultra petita, it is not entitled either to redefine the principal subject-matter of the action or to raise a plea of its own motion except in particular cases where the public interest requires its intervention. Within the framework of the dispute as defined by the parties, the Community Court, whilst it must rule only on the application submitted by the parties, cannot confine itself to the arguments put forward by the parties in support of their claims or it may be forced to base its decision on erroneous legal considerations.
In a dispute between the parties concerning the interpretation and application of a provision of Community law, the Community Court is required to apply to the facts put before it by the parties the relevant rules of law for the solution of the dispute. According to the principle iura novit curia, determining the meaning of the law does not fall within the scope of application of a principle which allows the parties a free hand to determine the scope of the case and the Community Court is therefore not obliged to inform the parties of the interpretation it intends to give in order to enable them to adopt a position on that subject.
(see paras 34-36)
See: Opinion of Advocate General Léger in C‑252/96 P Parliament v Gutiérrez de Quijano y Lloréns [1998] ECR I‑7421, I‑7422, para. 36; Opinion of Advocate General Cosmas in C‑174/98 P and C‑189/98 P Netherlands and van der Wal v Commission [2000] ECR I‑1, I‑3, paras 95 and 96; 27 September 2004, C‑470/02 P UER/M6 and Others, not published in the ECR, para. 69; 13 June 2006, C‑172/05 P Mancini v Commission, not published in the ECR, para. 41; 20 June 2007, T‑246/99 Tirrenia di Navigazione and Others v Commission, not published in the ECR, para. 102; T‑90/07 P and T‑99/07 P Belgium v GIenette, [2008] ECR II-3859, paras 72 to 75
2. It is for the Civil Service Tribunal to interpret and apply the term ‘non-marital partnership’ as used in Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations and Article 1(2)(c)(i) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, in so far as those provisions do not require a decision that comes solely within the remit of the Member State concerned and is subject to judicial review under the legal system of that State.
An autonomous interpretation of the term ‘non-marital partnership’ does not affect the exclusive competence of Member States with regard to the civil status of persons and determination of the benefits deriving therefrom. In so far as the definition given relates to a term used in the Staff Regulations, its scope is necessarily circumscribed by the framework of the Staff Regulations. It governs solely the award of certain social benefits granted by the Staff Regulations to officials or other servants of the European Communities, and has no effects in the Member States, which are free to introduce statutory arrangements granting legal recognition to forms of union other than marriage.
(see paras 44-45, 87)
See: 59/85, Reed [1986] ECR 1283, paras 13 to 15; C‑267/06 Maruko [2008] ECR I‑1757, paras 59 and 73; Belgium v Genette, para. 57 and the case-law cited therein
3. The terms of a provision of Community law which makes no express reference to the laws of the Member States for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope must normally be given an independent interpretation which must take into account the context of the provision and the purpose of the relevant rules. However, in the absence of an express reference to the laws of the Member States, the application of Community law may sometimes necessitate a reference to the laws of the Member States where the Community Court cannot identify in Community law or in the general principles of Community law criteria enabling it to define the meaning and scope of such a provision by way of independent interpretation.
(see para. 70)
See: 327/84 Ekro [1984] ECR. 107, para. 11; T‑43/90 Díaz García v Parliament [1992] ECR II‑2619, para. 36; T‑85/91 Khouri v Commission [1992] ECR II‑2637, para. 32
4. With regard to the sickness insurance benefits provided for in Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations, the concept of ‘non-marital partnership’ has a single meaning. Given the wide differences between national legislations with regard to the introduction of statutory arrangements granting legal recognition to various forms of union other than marriage, the term ‘official registered as a stable non-marital partner’ contained in the first sentence of Article 1(2)(c) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations cannot, as such, be interpreted as referring to a ‘registered partnership’ arrangement clearly identified throughout all Member States. From that point of view, and at this stage in the evolution of the various national legal systems, ‘registered partnership’ is thus different from ‘marriage’, whose outlines are clearly defined throughout all Member States.
It follows from this that the term ‘registered partnership’ used in the Staff Regulations can be defined only with regard to all the relevant provisions of the Staff Regulations, in particular in the light of the information contained in the conditions laid down in Article 1(2)(c) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations. In the absence of a generally accepted meaning for the term ‘registered partnership’, a mere reference to such a partnership in the first sentence of that article does not provide sufficient information regarding the term’s definition. Moreover, the word ‘registered’ used in the first sentence of Article 1(2)(c) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations refers solely to certain formal aspects that are set out in the first condition laid down in Article 1(2)(c) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations and cannot therefore be interpreted as imposing a specific condition of ‘registration’ or as requiring that partnership should be ‘regulated by law’, in the same way as marriage.
Moreover, the concept of ‘non-marital partnership’, as inferred from the conditions laid down in Article 1(2)(c) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, must be interpreted in the light of recital 8 in the preamble to Regulation No 723/2004, which states that the Community legislature intended, under certain conditions, to extend to ‘officials in a non-marital relationship recognised by a Member State as a stable partnership’ the same benefits as are granted to married couples.
Therefore, the existence of a non-marital partnership, within the meaning of the Staff Regulations, implies, on the one hand, a union between two persons, excluding dependants covered by other provisions of the Staff Regulations, and, on the other hand, certain formal aspects, such as production of an official document acknowledging that the persons concerned are non-marital partners and recognition of the official nature of that document by the Member State concerned.
It follows from all the above considerations that it is possible on the basis of the relevant provisions of the Staff Regulations to define the term ‘non-marital partnership’ as having a certain resemblance to a marriage. Those provisions do not however require the ‘non-marital partnership’ to be equivalent to marriage. Such a requirement amounts to adding an additional condition that was not laid down in the Staff Regulations, which would lead to discrimination against some officials on the ground of the abstract form of their partnership, even though the relevant national legislation recognises that partnership and the necessary conditions contained in the Staff Regulations are fulfilled. Although the Staff Regulations require, for the purposes of recognition of the existence of a ‘non-marital partnership’, evidence of cohabitation characterised by a certain stability, they do not require the partners to be bound by specific reciprocal rights and obligations. The resemblance to a marriage required by the Staff Regulations results precisely from such cohabitation and from the requirement of certain formal aspects.
(see paras 73, 75-77, 81-86, 91, 96)