JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Single Judge)

3 February 2000

Case T-60/99

Malcolm Townsend

v

Commission of the European Communities

‛Officials Common sickness insurance scheme Cover of spouse’

Full text in French   II-45

Application for:

annulment of the decision of 12 March 1998 of the Brussels office responsible for settling claims refusing to reimburse certain medical expenses incurred by the applicant's spouse.

Held:

The application is dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.

Summary

1. Officials Social security Sickness insurance Spouse who was gainfully employed Conditions of cover by the common scheme

   (Staff Regulations, Art. 72(1); Rules on sickness insurance, Art. 3(1))

2. Objection of illegality Scope Measures which may be claimed to be illegal

   (EC Treaty, Art. 184 (now Art. 241 EC))

1.  Neither Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations nor Article 3(1) of the Rules on sickness insurance for officials makes admission of a member's spouse to the common scheme conditional on sickness cover being available under other provisions laid down by law or regulation solely by virtue of that person's being gainfully employed. Therefore, the argument that it is the fact that an official's spouse is gainfully employed that either places the spouse under an obligation to be insured against sickness or gives entitlement to voluntary sickness insurance cannot be accepted.

   Consequently, an official's spouse whose annual income from former employment does not exceed the threshold laid down in the second indent of Article 3(1) of the insurance rules and who is entitled to join a sickness insurance scheme of a Member State solely by virtue of residence in that State can benefit from the common sickness insurance scheme only on a supplementary basis.

   (see para. 43)

2.  The scope of an objection of illegality must be limited to what is necessary for determination of the dispute. Article 184 of the Treaty (now Article 241 EC) is not intended to enable a party to contest the applicability of any measure of general application in support of any action whatsoever. The general measure claimed to be illegal must be applicable, directly or indirectly, to the issue with which the action is concerned and there must be a direct legal connection between the contested individual decision and the general measure in question.

   (see para. 53)

   See: 21/64 Macchiorlati Dalmas e Figli v High Authority [1965] ECR 175, at pp. 187-8; 32/65 Italy v Council and Commission [1966] ECR 389, at pp. 409, 410; T-6/92 and T-52/92 Reinarz v Commission [1993] ECR II-1047, para. 57