Transcript Slide 1

Recent Case Law
4.9.2012 Tallinn
Estonian Finnish trESS seminar
Essi Rentola
trESS
trESS
•C-106/11 M.J. Bakker
•
Compulsory affiliation to the Dutch social insurance scheme
•C-611/10 Waldemar Hudzinski and Jaroslaw Wawrzyniak
•
Child benefit in Germany
•C-522/10 Doris Reichel-Albert
•
Concerning the refusal to take into account and credit, for the purposes of calculating future old
age pension, ‘child-raising periods’ and ‘periods to be taken into consideration’ completed by
her in Belgium.
•C-257/10, Bergström
•
Concerning equating income earned in another country in the determination of entitlement to
family benefits
C-106/11 M.J. Bakker v Minister van Financiën
Facts
– During 2004, Mr Bakker, who has Dutch nationality, resided in Spain
and was employed on board dredgers flying the Dutch flag for an
undertaking established in Rotterdam (Netherlands). He carried out
his activities mainly in the territorial seas of China and of the United
Arab Emirates. The dredgers were recorded in the Dutch maritime
shipping register.
– Mr Bakker challenged the assessment sent to him in respect of income
tax and national insurance contributions for 2004 in the Netherlands
and was convinced he should not be affiliated to the Dutch
compulsory social security scheme
C-106/11 M.J. Bakker v Minister van Financiën
Questions to the ECJ
– Does Article 13(2)(c) of Regulation No 1408/71 preclude a
national legislative measure that excludes from affiliation
to the social security scheme a person who holds that
Member State’s nationality but does not reside in it and is
employed on board a dredger flying the flag of that
Member State but operating outside European Union
territory?
C-106/11 M.J. Bakker v Minister van Financiën
ECJ
– Article 13(2)(c) of Regulation 1408/71 expressly provides that a person employed on
board a vessel flying the flag of a Member State is to be subject to the legislation of the
State.
– Concept of ‘vessel’ and to the sovereignty of coastal states could not alter that
conclusion.
– Residence requirement for compulsory general social insurance in the Netherlands could
not change the conclusion.
– Article 13(2)(c) of Regulation No 1408/71 must thus be interpreted as precluding a
legislative measure of a Member State from excluding, from affiliation to the social
security scheme of that Member State, a person in the position of the applicant in the
main proceedings, who holds that Member State’s nationality but does not reside in it
and is employed on board a dredger flying the flag of that Member State and operating
outside the territory of the European Union.
Case C-611/10 Waldemar Hudzinski v Agentur für Arbeit Wesel - Familienkasse
and Jaroslaw Wawrzyniak v Agentur für Arbeit Mönchengladbach –
Familienkasse
Facts:
– Mr Hudziński and Mr Wawrzyniak, both Polish nationals, living and working in
Poland, had respectively worked as a seasonal worker and as a posted worker
in Germany. Both were treated as being subject to unlimited income tax
liability in Germany for that period.
– When they applied for the payment of child benefit (pursuant to German
legislation basing entitlement to child benefits on unlimited income tax
liability), the German Familienkasse rejected that application.
– In their respective appeals before the German Federal Finance Court, they
refered to Case C 352/06 Bosmann
• That the German child benefits legislation remains applicable even where, pursuant to
Regulation 1408/71, the Federal Republic of Germany is not the competent Member State
under Article 14a(1)(a) of that regulation, in the case of Mr Hudziński, or under Article 14(1)(a)
of that regulation, in the case of Mr Wawrzyniak.
Case C-611/10 Waldemar Hudzinski v Agentur für Arbeit Wesel - Familienkasse and
Jaroslaw Wawrzyniak v Agentur für Arbeit Mönchengladbach – Familienkasse
•
Questions to ECJ:
– Does Regulation No 1408/71 preclude a Member State, which is not
designated under those provisions as the competent Member State, from
granting child benefits in accordance with its national law ?
– Does the rules against overlapping set out in Article 76 of Regulation 1408/71
and Article 10 of Regulation 547/72, the Treaty rules on the free movement of
workers and the principle of non-discrimination preclude the application of a
rule of national law, which excludes entitlement to child benefits in the case
where a comparable benefit must be paid in another State or would have to
be paid if a claim to that effect were to be made?
Case C-611/10 Waldemar Hudzinski v Agentur für Arbeit Wesel - Familienkasse and
Jaroslaw Wawrzyniak v Agentur für Arbeit Mönchengladbach – Familienkasse
ECJ:
• According to Articles 14(1)(a) and 14a(1)(a) of Regulation 1408/71 Polish
legislation is applicable.
• The objective of the provisions of Title II of Regulation No 1408/71 is to
ensure that persons to which its applicable are in principle subject to the
social security scheme of only one Member State.
• Primary law of the European Union cannot guarantee to an insured person
that moving to another Member State will be neutral in terms of social
security.
Case C-611/10 Waldemar Hudzinski v Agentur für Arbeit Wesel - Familienkasse and
Jaroslaw Wawrzyniak v Agentur für Arbeit Mönchengladbach – Familienkasse
ECJ:
•
Regulation No 1408/71 must be interpreted in the light of Article 48 TFEU
 A migrant workers must not lose their right to social security benefits or have
the amount of those benefits reduced because they have exercised the right
to freedom of movement .
•
Residence of the worker or his family members in the non-competent state is
irrelevant
 As the connection to the MS from which family benefits are claimed is the fact
of subjection to unlimited income tax liability in respect of the income earned
from the temporary work in that Member State.
 Such a connection is based on a precise criterion and may be regarded as
being sufficiently close, when account is also taken of the fact that the family
benefit claimed is financed by tax revenue.
Case C-611/10 Waldemar Hudzinski v Agentur für Arbeit Wesel - Familienkasse and
Jaroslaw Wawrzyniak v Agentur für Arbeit Mönchengladbach – Familienkasse
• German rules excluded entitlement to child benefits where a comparable
benefit must be paid or would have to be paid if it was claimed,
– This situation is not covered by that rule against overlapping or by that
laid down by Article 76 of Regulation 1408/71 since it does not
concern a hypothetical overlapping of entitlements.
• A national rule that excludes the national benefit constitutes a substantial
disadvantage affecting in reality a greater number of migrant workers than
settled workers who have worked exclusively in the Member State
concerned.
– Therefore disadvantage is contrary to the requirements of the primary
law of the European Union on the free movement of workers.
(Case C-522/10) Doris Reichel-Albert v Deutsche
Rentenversicherung Nordbayern
Facts:
•Mrs Reichel-Albert, a German national, pursued an activity as an employed
person in Germany and lived there until 30 June 1980. She then received
unemployment benefit paid by that Member State until 10 October 1980.
From July 1980 to June 1986, she was resident in Belgium with her spouse,
who pursued an activity as an employed person there. The couple has two
children, who were born in Belgium on in 1981 and 1984. On 1 July 1986, Mrs
Reichel-Albert, her spouse and their children were officially returned to
reside in Germany. By decisions in 2008, the DRN rejected Mrs ReichelAlbert’s request to have the child-raising periods and ‘periods to be taken
into consideration’ completed during her stay in Belgium taken into account
and credited, on the ground that, during that period, the child-raising took
place abroad.
Case C-522/10 Doris Reichel-Albert v Deutsche
Rentenversicherung Nordbayern
Question to ECJ:
• Must article 21 TFEU be interpreted as requiring the
competent institution of a first Member State, for the
purposes of granting an old age pension, to take account of
child-raising periods completed in a second Member State as
though those periods had been completed on its national
territory by a person who, at the time of the birth of her
child, had ceased being in employment in that first Member
State and had temporarily established his or her residence in
the territory of the second Member State, although without
being employed as an employee or self-employed person?
Case C-522/10 Doris Reichel-Albert v Deutsche
Rentenversicherung Nordbayern
ECJ:
• Article 21 TFEU was decisive in this case and it was apparent
from Article 87(1) of Regulation 883/2004, which applies to
situations governed by Regulation 987/2009 pursuant to
Article 93 of that regulation, that it does not give rise to any
entitlement for the period prior to the date of its application,
namely 1 May 2010. Consequently, Article 44 of Regulation No
987/2009 is not applicable ratione temporis to the facts at
issue in the main proceedings. As Regulation 1408/71 does
not lay down specific rules for child-raising periods either, the
ECJ only referred to the Treaty.
Case C-522/10 Doris Reichel-Albert v Deutsche
Rentenversicherung Nordbayern
ECJ:
• German legislation was applicable and, as regards the crediting of those
periods of child-rearing for the purposes of old age insurance, Mrs
Reichel-Albert cannot be regarded as coming under the jurisdiction of her
Member State of residence during the periods concerned. The fact that
she worked and contributed in only one Member State, both before and
after temporarily transferring her place of residence, solely on familyrelated grounds, to another Member State where she never worked or
contributed, allows a sufficiently close link to be established between
those child-raising periods and the periods of insurance completed by
virtue of the pursuit of a gainful occupation in the first Member State
under consideration
Case C-522/10 Doris Reichel-Albert v Deutsche
Rentenversicherung Nordbayern
ECJ:
•According to German law, child-raising periods completed outside Germany,
unlike those completed in the national territory, are not taken into account
unless the child-raising parent has habitually resided abroad with his or her
child and during the period devoted to child-raising or immediately before the
birth of the child has completed periods of contribution (own activity).
•National legislation which places some of its nationals at a disadvantage
simply because they have exercised their freedom to move and to reside in
another Member State thereby gives rise to inequality of treatment, contrary
to the principles which underpin the status of citizen of the Union,.
 the fact of precluding child-raising periods completed outside the
national territory from being taken into account, is contrary to Article
21 TFEU.
C-257/10 Försäkringskassan v Elisabeth Bergström
• A Swedish national who was employed in Switzerland
until the birth of her daughter. After giving birth, she
returned to Sweden (hence, not insured for sick leave
benefits in Sweden)
• She applied for Swedish parental benefit
 At the basic level (no Swedish sick leave insurance)
 At the daily sick leave benefit level (Swedish sick leave insurance, last annual
salary to be used as assessment base)
• Swedish National Social Insurance Office grants only
basic parental benefit because she had not been
employed in Sweden
C-257/10 Försäkringskassan v Elisabeth Bergström
• Questions to ECJ:
• Can a qualification period for family benefits
required under Swedish law be completed
through employment and insurance in
Switzerland?
• Is income earned in Switzerland to be equated
with domestic income in the determination of
entitlement to family benefits?
C-257/10 Försäkringskassan v Elisabeth Bergström
• Principle of aggregation of periods includes ‘all periods’; insurance
periods in home State are not required.
Wording of Article 8 Regulation 1408/71 + equal treatment
requirement
Formula: 0+1, instead of 1+1
• Ms Bergström’s qualifying income must be calculated by taking into
account the income of a person who is employed, in Sweden, in a
situation comparable to her situation and comparable to her
experience and qualifications
Annex VI to Regulation 1408/71
Relevance for Regulation 883/2004?
Outlook
•
•
ECJ, C-433/11, Jeltes et al.
– Relevance of Miethe judgment for Regulation 883/2004 (special solution for
non-typical frontier workers despite Article 65?)
ECJ, C-140/12, Brey
– Relationship between Regulation 883/2004 and Residence Directive
2004/38/EC (Can a non-contributory cash benefit be welfare assistance as
defined in residence law?)
• ECJ, C-321/12, van der Helder and Farrington
– Interpretation of Articles 4 and 28(2)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71.
– Benefits for pensioners resident in a Member State other than that of the competent
institution.
– Concept of ‘legislation [to which] the pensioner has been subject for the longest period
of time’ .