ECJ 20 December 2017, case C-442/16 (Gusa), Free movement, Social insurance

Self-employed workers who have ceased their activity for reasons beyond their control and who are registered as jobseekers, retain their status as self-employed persons for the purposes of Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 2004/38.

ECJ 20 December 2017, case C-442/16 (Gusa), Free movement, Social insurance

Self-employed workers who have ceased their activity for reasons beyond their control and who are registered as jobseekers, retain their status as self-employed persons for the purposes of Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 2004/38.

ECJ 7 december 2017, case C-189/16 (Zaniewicz-Dybeck), Free movement, Social insurance

A minimum benefit as defined in Article 50 of Regulation No 1408/71 may not be calculated in accordance with Articles 46(2) and 47 of that Regulation, but benefits receive in other Member States may be taken into account in calculating the minimum benefit.

ECJ 7 december 2017, case C-189/16 (Zaniewicz-Dybeck), Free movement, Social insurance

A minimum benefit as defined in Article 50 of Regulation No 1408/71 may not be calculated in accordance with Articles 46(2) and 47 of that Regulation, but benefits receive in other Member States may be taken into account in calculating the minimum benefit.

ECJ 13 September 2017, case C-570/15 (X), Free movement, Social insurance

A Dutch employee who resides in Belgium and performs only 6.5% of his hours worked in Belgium (and the rest in the Netherlands), cannot be regarded as ‘normally’ pursuing an activity in two or more Member States. The special rule in Article 14(2)(b)(i) of Regulation No 1408/71, stating that a person normally employed in the territory of two or more Member States shall be subject to the legislation of the Member State in whose territory he resides, does not apply in this case.

ECJ 13 September 2017, case C-570/15 (X), Free movement, Social insurance

A Dutch employee who resides in Belgium and performs only 6.5% of his hours worked in Belgium (and the rest in the Netherlands), cannot be regarded as ‘normally’ pursuing an activity in two or more Member States. The special rule in Article 14(2)(b)(i) of Regulation No 1408/71, stating that a person normally employed in the territory of two or more Member States shall be subject to the legislation of the Member State in whose territory he resides, does not apply in this case.

ECJ 19 October 2017, case C-531/15 (Otero Ramos), General discrimination, Gender discrimination

The provisions on the burden of proof regarding the equal treatment of men and women in employment matters in Directive 2006/54 also apply to claims by breastfeeding workers based on Directive 92/85 (safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding).

ECJ 19 October 2017, case C-531/15 (Otero Ramos), General discrimination, Gender discrimination

The provisions on the burden of proof regarding the equal treatment of men and women in employment matters in Directive 2006/54 also apply to claims by breastfeeding workers based on Directive 92/85 (safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding).

ECJ 21 September 2017, case C-149/16 (Halina Socha v. Szpital Specjalistyczny), Collective redundancies

A unilateral amendment of employment conditions qualifies as ‘redundancy’ within Directive 98/59 on collective redundancies, if the employee’s refusal entails the termination of the employment contract.

Case C-474/16. Social security

Is the legal effect of an A1 certificate issued to a temporary-work agency, in accordance with...