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/187791072019004002064

European Employment Law CasesAccess_open

Pending Cases

Case C-802/18, Social Insurance

Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants – v – FV, GW, reference lodged by the Conseil supérieur de la Sécurité sociale (Luxembourg) on 19 December 2018

DOI
Show PDF Show fullscreen
Statistics Citation
This article has been viewed times.
This article been downloaded 0 times.
Suggested citation
, "Case C-802/18, Social Insurance", European Employment Law Cases, 2, (2019):152-152

Dit artikel wordt geciteerd in

      1. Must Luxembourg family allowances awarded pursuant to Articles 269 and 270 of the Code de la sécurité sociale (Social Security Code) be treated as a social advantage within the meaning of Article 45 TFEU and Article 7(2) of Regulation 492/2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union?

      2. If they are so treated, the definition of member of the family applicable under Article 1(i) of Regulation 883/2004 is at odds with the broader definition of family member in Article 2(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council when the latter excludes, contrary to what is established by the Coordination Regulation, all autonomy of the Member State in defining a member of the family, and excludes any, subsidiary, concept of a person who is mainly dependent. Must the definition of member of the family under Article 1(i) of Regulation 883/2004 prevail given its specificity in the context of the coordination of social security systems and, above all, does the Member State retain competence to define members of the family who are entitled to family allowances?

      3. If Article 2(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council is applicable to family benefits and more precisely to Luxembourg family allowances, can the exclusion of the child of a spouse from the definition of a member of the family be considered indirect discrimination that is justified in view of the domestic objective of the Member State of safeguarding the personal right of the child and the need to protect the authorities of the Member State of employment when extension of the personal field of application amounts to an unreasonable burden for the Luxembourg family benefits system, which, in particular, exports almost 48% of its family benefits?


Print this article