scholarly journals Overview of recent cases before the court of justice of the European Union (February 2019-June 2019)

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 272-280 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Pieter van der Mei ◽  
Pauline Melin

In the reporting period (February 2019-June 2019), the Court of Justice of the European Union did not deliver any ground breaking rulings that really altered existing coordination rules on social security. Nonetheless, the Court did rule in various interesting cases. These include the material scope of Regulation 883/2004 ( Dreyer), the rules determining the applicable legislation ( SF), invalidity benefits ( Vester), and family benefits ( Bogatu). In addition, the Court brought about clarification of the possibility of retaining worker status (and thus claiming social benefits as a worker) under Directive 2004/38 ( Tarola) and the right of Turkish nationals to export benefits under Decision 3/80 when returning to Turkey ( Coban).

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 370-377
Author(s):  
Anne Pieter van der Mei

In the reporting period July-September 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered various rulings that are significant for social security. The ruling that stands out is the one in Van den Berg and others, which concerned the power of a non-competent Member State to grant residents benefits where they lack insurance cover in the competent State. The other cases included in this overview concern the application of the right to equal treatment to social security conventions concluded between a Member State and a third country ( EU), the retention of the status of self-employed person by women who cease to be active due to pregnancy ( Dakneviciute) and the right to export student financial aid ( Aubriet).


2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 273-286
Author(s):  
Franz Marhold ◽  
Christoph Paul Ludvik

Austria amended legislation, adjusting family benefits such as the family allowance and the deductible family allowance amount to the (lower) price level indices for consumer goods and services (indexation) of the State of residence of the child. This case is not a unique case. In the European Union, similar endeavours were envisaged in several Member States. The Austrian legislation, however, is now being challenged before the CJEU. In the authors’ opinion, this unsuitable cost-saving budget measure contradicts Union law. Consequently, the provisions concerned must remain unapplied. After all, since the Austrian legislation is obviously incompatible with primary Union law, authorities or courts are not even required to refer the matter to the CJEU.


2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-179 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ger Essers ◽  
Frans Pennings

The effects of crossing borders can be advantageous or disadvantageous for the persons concerned; these are all part of the game and cannot be challenged on the basis of EU law. After all, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) does not provide powers for harmonisation, but only for coordination. However, the coordination rules themselves may make a person worse off when he or she makes use of the right to free movement. More precisely, such an effect may occur in combination with differences between national systems to which coordination rules are applied. One example is that the coordination rules provide that a person is subject to unemployment benefits in the country of residence and, as a result, if that person becomes ill, also to sickness benefit in that country. If the duration of sickness benefit in the country of residence is 52 weeks, but the waiting period for disability benefit (supposing, for instance, that this is (mainly) due from the country of employment) is 104 weeks, there is a gap of 52 weeks in protection. The relevance of such gaps is not to solve particular cases as such; after all, these are closely linked to particular national systems. The relevance lies in the more general approach that is now being developed by the Court of Justice to address such gaps. This will be useful in cases other than those discussed here and may be further developed in order to be codified in the Coordination Regulation.


2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 327-332
Author(s):  
Pauline Melin

In the reporting period (1 February - 30 June 2020), there were five noteworthy cases in the field of social security. Two cases originated in French courts and concerned E 101 certificates. The Vueling case concerned the conditions for disregarding fraudulent E 101 certificates. Bouygues travaux publics dealt with the effects of E 101 certificates on obligations at the crossroads of social security and labour law. In Pensionsversicherungsanstalt v CW, the issue concerned whether a Member State of origin, Austria, must grant a rehabilitation allowance to a national no longer working or residing there. Caisse d’assurance retraite et de la santé au travail d’Alsace-Moselle v SJ related to the obligation for the competent institution to take into account an allowance paid by another Member State for raising a disabled child when calculating an insurance period for entitlement to an old-age pension. Finally, Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants v FV was a case about access to family benefits by a frontier worker for a child living in the same household but with whom there was no blood relationship.


Author(s):  
Denis Martin

Any citizen of the Union and any natural or legal person residing or having its registered office in a Member State has the right to refer to the European Ombudsman cases of maladministration in the activities of the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the Union, with the exception of the Court of Justice of the European Union acting in its judicial role.


2020 ◽  
pp. 507-528
Author(s):  
Marios Costa ◽  
Steve Peers

This chapter examines the social rights that arise as part of free-movement rights under Articles 21, 45, 49 and 59 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). It highlights the extensive interpretation given by the Court of Justice (CJ) to these rights ensuring equality of treatment for those migrants who are economically active. As well as dealing with the provisions in the Citizens’ Rights Directive (CRD) (Directive 2004/38) and Regulation 492/2011 on the free movement of workers, the chapter deals briefly with the provisions relating to social security and EU citizenship.


2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 333-343 ◽  
Author(s):  
Achim Seifert

Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the workers employed in the establishments of a group located in the territory of that Member State are deprived of the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in elections of workers’ representatives to the supervisory board of the parent company of that group, which is established in that Member State, and as the case may be, of the right to act or to continue to act as representative on that board, where those workers leave their employment in such an establishment and are employed by a subsidiary belonging to the same group established in another Member State.


2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 441-448
Author(s):  
Maria Antonia Panascì

This case note examines the judgment of Court of Justice of the European Union delivered in Joined Cases C-569/16 and C-570/16 Stadt Wuppertal v. Maria Elisabeth Bauer and Volker Willmeroth v. Martina Broßonn on 6 November 2018. It engages with the noteworthy aspects of the ruling, such as the horizontal direct effect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the Charter), the relationship between primary and secondary law in the European Union legal order and the scope of application of the Charter.


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (13) ◽  
pp. 469-480
Author(s):  
Alexandre Coutinho Pagliarini ◽  
Maria Fernanda Augustinhak Schumacker Haering Teixeira

This research has as general objective to analyze the guardian role exercised by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJUE) for the protection of the Fundamental Community Right to the free movement of workers within the scope of the European economic bloc and the importance of the migratory flow for the maintenance of the said block. The spouse of this article previously analyzes the emergence of the European Communities and the need for the defense, reconstruction and stabilization of Europe after the end of the Second World War, as well as dealing with the Treaties of Paris and Rome, propellants of the European Communities, characterized as an autonomous legal system and of great importance for the development of European primary law. Then, he discusses the movement of workers within the European Union (EU) and the right of the European citizen to look for a job, to work, to settle or to provide services in any EU Member State, and then to address the issue of the role of the worker. CJEU as guardian of the fundamental European Community law on the free movement of workers. After the analysis of recent judgments of the European Court of Justice, the need to protect the free movement of European workers, with due regard to the founding treaties of the European Union, remains necessary for the proper maintenance of the European bloc European Union. The methodology used in the research is critical reflexive, which operates through the bibliographic review and the analysis of concrete cases assessed by the CJEU.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document