GENERAL NOTICE

In January 2025, this online platform will be integrated into Boomportaal (www.boomportaal.nl), after which this platform will be discontinued. From that moment on, this URL will automatically redirect to Boomportaal.

DOI: 10.5553/EELC/187791072018003002020

European Employment Law CasesAccess_open

Rulings

ECJ 30 May 2018, case C-517/16 (Czerwinski), Social insurance

Stefan Czerwinski – v – Zakład Ubezpieczen Społecznych Oddział w Gdansku, Polish case

Keywords Social insurance
DOI
Show PDF Show fullscreen
Abstract Statistics Citation
This article has been viewed times.
This article been downloaded 0 times.
Suggested citation
, "ECJ 30 May 2018, case C-517/16 (Czerwinski), Social insurance", European Employment Law Cases, 2, (2018):44-44

Dit artikel wordt geciteerd in

    • Questions to the ECJ1x As rephrased by the ECJ

      1. Is the classification of a benefit under one of the branches of social security listed in Article 3 of Regulation No 883/2004 made by the competent national authority in the declaration to be made by the Member State under Article 9(1) of that regulation definitive or is it capable of assessment by the national courts?

      2. Is such a benefit to be regarded as an ‘old-age benefit’ within the meaning of Article 3(1)(d) of Regulation No 883/2004 or a ‘pre-retirement benefit’ within the meaning of Article 3(1)(i) of that regulation?

    • Ruling

      1. The classification of a benefit under one of the branches of social security listed in Article 3 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, made by the competent national authority in the declaration submitted by the Member State pursuant to Article 9(1) of that regulation, is not definitive. The classification of a social security benefit may be made by the national court concerned, autonomously and on the basis of the elements that constitute the social security benefit at issue, and by referring, if necessary, a question for a preliminary ruling to the Court.

      2. A benefit such as that at issue in the main proceedings must be regarded as an ‘old-age benefit’ within the meaning of Article 3(1)(d) of Regulation No 883/2004.

    Noten

    • 1 As rephrased by the ECJ


Print this article