Suchergebnisse

In the reporting period July-September 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered various rulings that are significant for social security. The ruling that stands out is the one in Van den Berg and others, which concerned the power of a non-competent Member State to grant residents benefits where they lack insurance cover in the competent State. The other cases included in this overview concern the application of the right to equal treatment to social security conventions concluded between a Member State and a third country ( EU), the retention of the status of self-employed person by women who cease to be active due to pregnancy ( Dakneviciute) and the right to export student financial aid ( Aubriet).

In the reporting period July-October 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered three rulings ( Alpenrind, Walltopia, and Commission v Belgium) concerning the conflict rule for posted workers as contained in Article 12 of Regulation 883/2004. The CJEU clarified the meaning of the `non-replacement condition', the legal status of workers who are recruited for the sole purpose of being posted to another Member State as well as procedural aspects relating to A1 certificates. In addition, the CJEU delivered judgments on the portability of personal care benefits (A), the application of the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of disability to social security provisions contained in collective agreements ( Bedi) and the protection of supplementary pension claims in the event of insolvency of the employer ( Grenville Hampshire).

In the reporting period July-October 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered three rulings (Alpenrind, Walltopia, and Commission v Belgium) concerning the conflict rule for posted workers as contained in Article 12 of Regulation 883/2004. The CJEU clarified the meaning of the 'non-replacement condition', the legal status of workers who are recruited for the sole purpose of being posted to another Member State as well as procedural aspects relating to A1 certificates. In addition, the CJEU delivered judgments on the portability of personal care benefits (A), the application of the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of disability to social security provisions contained in collective agreements (Bedi) and the protection of supplementary pension claims in the event of insolvency of the employer (Grenville Hampshire).

This contribution presents an overview of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the period April–September 2017 on social security matters. The relevant rulings concern first and foremost the rules determining the applicable legislation as enshrined in Regulation 883/2004 and Regulation 1408/71. In addition, the Court of Justice has delivered important rulings concerning posted worker and the binding effect of A1 certificates, the social security rights of third country nationals holding a single-permit and the protection of social rights in the context of financial crisis and austerity measures.

In the first half of 2016 (the reporting period), the Court of Justice of the European Union (EU) delivered various interesting rulings concerning the rights to social (security) benefits of Union citizens who exercise their free movement rights. The rulings touch upon a variety of issues, including the right of Union citizens who have only resided in another Member State for a short period of time to claim social assistance (Garcsía-Nieto); the competence of Member States to make entitlement to social security benefits falling within the scope of Regulation 883/20042004 on the coordination of social security systems1 conditional on lawful residence in their territory (Commission v United Kingdom); Member States' declarations on the application of the coordination rules to their social benefit systems (Commission v Malta); the principle of equal treatment of benefits, income, facts or events (Knauer); the pension rights of civil servants who resign (Commission v Cyprus); the aggregation rules for unemployment benefits (M.); and student financial aid offered in the form of public transport subsidies (Commission v the Netherlands).

In 2014 the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR or Court) did not deliver landmark rulings establishing new principles relevant for, or overturning previous jurisprudence on, social security. Rather, the cases that were decided by the ECtHR confirmed key principles developed in older case law and clarified their practical meaning and implications by applying these in new or comparable cases. Notably, most of the cases decided by the Court in 2014 concerned pension reforms and the concrete implications of these for individuals.1