ECJ 20 October 2011, case C-225/10 (Perez Garcia - v - Familienkasse Nürnberg), Free movement, Social insurance

Juan Perez Garcia, José Arias Neira, Fernando Barrera Castro and José Bernal...

ECJ 20 October 2011, case C-225/10 (Perez Garcia - v - Familienkasse Nürnberg), Free movement, Social insurance

Juan Perez Garcia, José Arias Neira, Fernando Barrera Castro and José Bernal...

ECJ 30 June 2011, case C-388/09 (Joao Filipe da Silva Martins - v - Bank Betriebskrankenkasse- Pflegekasse), Social insurance

Articles 15 and 27 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 […] must be interpreted as not precluding a person in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, who draws retirement pensions from retirement insurance funds both of his Member State of origin and of the Member State in which he spent most of his working life and has moved from that Member State to his Member State of origin, from continuing, by reason of optional continued affiliation to a separate care insurance scheme in the Member State in which he spent most of his working life, to receive a cash benefit corresponding to that affiliation, in particular where cash benefits relating to the specific risk of reliance on care do not exist in the Member State of residence, that being a matter for the referring court to ascertain.

If, contrary to that hypothesis, cash benefits relating to the risk of reliance on care are provided for under the legislation of the Member State of residence, but only at a lower level than that of the benefits relating to that risk from the other pension-paying Member State, Article 27 of Regulation No 1408/71 […] must be interpreted as meaning that such a person is entitled, at the expense of the competent institution of the latter State, to additional benefits equal to the difference between the two amounts.

ECJ 30 June 2011, case C-388/09 (Joao Filipe da Silva Martins - v - Bank Betriebskrankenkasse- Pflegekasse), Social insurance

Articles 15 and 27 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 […] must be interpreted as not precluding a person in a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, who draws retirement pensions from retirement insurance funds both of his Member State of origin and of the Member State in which he spent most of his working life and has moved from that Member State to his Member State of origin, from continuing, by reason of optional continued affiliation to a separate care insurance scheme in the Member State in which he spent most of his working life, to receive a cash benefit corresponding to that affiliation, in particular where cash benefits relating to the specific risk of reliance on care do not exist in the Member State of residence, that being a matter for the referring court to ascertain.

If, contrary to that hypothesis, cash benefits relating to the risk of reliance on care are provided for under the legislation of the Member State of residence, but only at a lower level than that of the benefits relating to that risk from the other pension-paying Member State, Article 27 of Regulation No 1408/71 […] must be interpreted as meaning that such a person is entitled, at the expense of the competent institution of the latter State, to additional benefits equal to the difference between the two amounts.

ECJ 10 March 2011, case C-379/09 (Maurits Casteels – v – British Airways plc), Collective agreements, Others forms of free movement

Article 48 TFEU has no horizontal direct effect. 

Article 45 TFEU precludes, in the context of the mandatory application of a collective labour agreement and for the determination of entitlement to pension benefits (i) non-inclusion of service years in different Member States and (ii) treating transfer to another Member State as leaving the employer.

ECJ 10 March 2011, case C-379/09 (Maurits Casteels – v – British Airways plc), Collective agreements, Others forms of free movement

Article 48 TFEU has no horizontal direct effect. 

Article 45 TFEU precludes, in the context of the mandatory application of a collective labour agreement and for the determination of entitlement to pension benefits (i) non-inclusion of service years in different Member States and (ii) treating transfer to another Member State as leaving the employer.

ECJ 10 February 2011, cases C-307 through 309/09 (Vicoplus SC PUH, BAM Vermeer Contracting Sp.zoo and Olbek Industrial Services Sp. zoo, Work and residence permit

Articles 56 and 57 TFEU do not preclude a Member State from making the hiring-out of workers from the Member States that acceded to the EU in 2004 subject to a work permit requirement during the relevant transitional period. Cross-border hiring-out of workers is characterised by the fact that the movement of workers to the host Member State constitutes the very purpose of the services provided by the workers’ employer.

ECJ 10 February 2011, cases C-307 through 309/09 (Vicoplus SC PUH, BAM Vermeer Contracting Sp.zoo and Olbek Industrial Services Sp. zoo, Work and residence permit

Articles 56 and 57 TFEU do not preclude a Member State from making the hiring-out of workers from the Member States that acceded to the EU in 2004 subject to a work permit requirement during the relevant transitional period. Cross-border hiring-out of workers is characterised by the fact that the movement of workers to the host Member State constitutes the very purpose of the services provided by the workers’ employer.

ECJ 14 October 2010, case C-345/09 (J.A. van Delft et al. – v – College van Zorgverzekeringen), Social insurance

Neither Regulation 1408/71 nor Article 21 TFEU preclude national legislation under which recipients of a pension, who reside in another Member State in which they are entitled to sickness benefits in kind provided by that Member State, must pay, in the form of a deduction from their pension, a contribution in respect of those benefits even if they are not registered with the competent institution of their Member State of residence. However, Article 21 TFEU does preclude national legislation in so far as it induces or provides for an unjustified difference of treatment between residents and non-residents as regards ensuring the continuity of the overall protection against the risk of sickness enjoyed by them under insurance contracts concluded before the entry into force of that legislation.

ECJ 14 October 2010, case C-345/09 (J.A. van Delft et al. – v – College van Zorgverzekeringen), Social insurance

Neither Regulation 1408/71 nor Article 21 TFEU preclude national legislation under which recipients of a pension, who reside in another Member State in which they are entitled to sickness benefits in kind provided by that Member State, must pay, in the form of a deduction from their pension, a contribution in respect of those benefits even if they are not registered with the competent institution of their Member State of residence. However, Article 21 TFEU does preclude national legislation in so far as it induces or provides for an unjustified difference of treatment between residents and non-residents as regards ensuring the continuity of the overall protection against the risk of sickness enjoyed by them under insurance contracts concluded before the entry into force of that legislation.