-
Questions to the ECJ1x As rephrased by the ECJ
Must Article 64(1)(c) of Regulation No 883/2004 be interpreted as precluding a national measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which requires the competent institution to refuse, as a matter of principle, any request to extend the unemployment benefit export period beyond three months, provided the institution does not consider that refusing that request would lead to an unreasonable result?
-
Ruling
Article 64(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems must be interpreted as not precluding a national measure, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, that requires the competent institution to refuse, as a matter of principle, any request to extend the unemployment benefit export period beyond three months, provided the institution does not consider that refusing that request would lead to an unreasonable result.
-
1 As rephrased by the ECJ
DOI: 10.5553/EELC/187791072018003002018
European Employment Law Cases |
|
| Rulings | ECJ 21 March 2018, case C-551/16 (Klein Schiphorst), Social insuranceJ. Klein Schiphorst – v – Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen, Dutch case |
| Keywords | Social insurance |
| DOI | 10.5553/EELC/187791072018003002018 |
|
Show PDF Show fullscreen Abstract Statistics Citation |
| This article has been viewed times. |
| This article been downloaded 0 times. |
Suggested citation
, "ECJ 21 March 2018, case C-551/16 (Klein Schiphorst), Social insurance", European Employment Law Cases, 2, (2018):43-43
, "ECJ 21 March 2018, case C-551/16 (Klein Schiphorst), Social insurance", European Employment Law Cases, 2, (2018):43-43
|
|
Dit artikel wordt geciteerd in
Contents