Case C‑517/16
Stefan Czerwiński
v
Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Gdańsku
(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Gdańsku III Wydział Pracy i Ubezpieczeń Społecznych)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security for migrant workers — Coordination of social security systems — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Material scope — Article 3 — Declaration made by Member States under Article 9 — Bridging pension — Classification — Statutory pre-retirement schemes — Exclusion of the rule of aggregation of periods under Article 66)
Summary — Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber), 30 May 2018
Social security—Migrant workers—EU rules—Material scope—Declaration submitted by the Member State under Article 9 (1) of Regulation No 883/2004—Effects—Obligations of Member States with regard to those declarations—Classification of a benefit made by a national court autonomously and on the basis of the elements that constitute that benefit
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 883/2004, Arts 3 and 9 (1))
Social security—Migrant workers—EU rules—Material scope—Old-age benefits—Bridging pension—Included—Distinguishing criteria with regard to pre-retirement benefits
(European Parliament and Council Regulation No 883/2004, Arts 1 (x) and 3 (1) (d))
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.
The Court has repeatedly held that the distinction between the benefits which are excluded from the scope of Regulation No 883/2004 and benefits which are covered essentially rests on the constituent elements of each benefit, in particular its purpose and the conditions for its grant, and not on whether the national law classifies it as a social security benefit or not (judgments of 27 March 1985, ScrivnerandCole, 122/84, EU:C:1985:145, paragraph 18; of 11 July 1996, Otte, C‑25/95, EU:C:1996:295, paragraph 21, and of 5 March 1998, Molenaar, C‑160/96, EU:C:1998:84, paragraph 19 and the case-law cited).
In any event, in order to fall within the scope of Regulation No 883/2004, a national law must cover one of the risks expressly listed in Article 3(1) of that regulation (see, to that effect, judgments of 27 March 1985, Scrivner andCole, 122/84, EU:C:1985:145, paragraph 19, and of 11 July 1996, Otte, C‑25/95, EU:C:1996:295, paragraph 22).
However, since there are doubts as to the classification of the social security benefit made by the competent national authority in its declaration made under Article 9 of Regulation No 883/2004, it is for the Member State which made that declaration to reconsider whether that classification is well founded and to amend it, if necessary (see, by analogy, judgment of 3 March 2016, Commission v Malta, C‑12/14, EU:C:2016:135, paragraph 39).
(see paras 33, 34, 36, 40, operative part 1)
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.
Where it is necessary to distinguish between different categories of social security benefits, the Court has clarified that the risk covered by each benefit must be taken into consideration (judgments of 18 July 2006, De Cuyper, C‑406/04, EU:C:2006:491, paragraph 27, and of 19 September 2013, HliddalandBornand, C‑216/12 and C‑217/12, EU:C:2013:568, paragraph 52).
Thus, the essential characteristic of the old-age benefits referred to in Article 3 (1) (d) of Regulation No 883/2004 lies in the fact that they are intended to safeguard the means of subsistence of persons who, when they reach a certain age, leave their employment and are no longer required to hold themselves available for work at the employment office (judgment of 5 July 1983, Valentini, 171/82, EU:C:1983:189, paragraph 14).
By contrast, pre-retirement benefits, even if they bear certain similarities to old-age benefits as regards their subject matter and purpose, namely, amongst other things, to safeguard the means of subsistence of persons who have reached a certain age, they differ from them notably in so far as they pursue an objective connected with employment policy inasmuch as they help to release posts held by workers who are near to the age of retirement for the benefit of younger unemployed persons, an objective which became apparent in a context of economic crisis which affected Europe (see, to that effect, judgment of 5 July 1983, Valentini, 171/82, EU:C:1983:189, paragraphs 16 and 17). Likewise, in the case of the cessation of the economic activity of an undertaking, the grant of such an allowance contributes to reducing the number of laid-off workers who are subject to the unemployment insurance scheme (see, by analogy, judgment of 11 July 1996, Otte, C‑25/95, EU:C:1996:295, paragraph 31).
It follows that pre-retirement benefits have a greater connection with the context of economic crisis, restructuring, redundancies and rationalisation.
Even if, a priori, the beneficiary of a bridging pension, in the same way as a worker receiving a pre-retirement benefit within the meaning of Article 1 (x) of Regulation No 883/2004, ceased or suspended their remunerative activities until the age at which they qualify for an old-age pension, it remains the case that the bridging pension is connected neither with the situation on the employment market in a context of economic crisis nor with the economic capacity of an undertaking in the context of a restructuring, but only with the nature of the work, which is of a particular nature or is performed under particular conditions.
Furthermore, to the extent that the national legislation at issue refers expressly to the ageing process of workers and makes no reference to an objective of releasing employment positions for younger persons, the benefit at issue in the main proceedings appears to have a greater connection with old-age benefits.
(see paras 44-47, 52, 53, 58, operative part 2)