# C_2005296EN.01000902.xml

| 26.11.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/9

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep by order of that court of 15 July 2005 in D.P.W. Hendrix v Raad van Bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut Werknemersverzekeringen

(Case C-287/05)

(2005/C 296/18)

Language of the case: Dutch

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Higher Social Security Court) of 15 July 2005, received at the Court Registry on 18 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between D.P.W. Hendrix and Raad van Bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut Werknemersverzekeringen on the following questions:

| 1. | Must a benefit under the Wajong, listed in Annex IIa to Regulation No 1408/71, (1) be deemed to be a special non-contributory benefit, as referred to in Article 4(2)a of Regulation No 1408/71, with the result that only the coordinating provision introduced by Article 10a of Regulation No 1408/71 must be applied to persons such as the appellant in the main proceedings? In answering this question does it make any difference whether the person concerned originally received a benefit (funded by contributions) for disabled young persons under the AAW which was converted by operation of the law into a Wajong benefit as of 1 January 1998? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must a benefit under the Wajong, listed in Annex IIa to Regulation No 1408/71, (1) be deemed to be a special non-contributory benefit, as referred to in Article 4(2)a of Regulation No 1408/71, with the result that only the coordinating provision introduced by Article 10a of Regulation No 1408/71 must be applied to persons such as the appellant in the main proceedings? In answering this question does it make any difference whether the person concerned originally received a benefit (funded by contributions) for disabled young persons under the AAW which was converted by operation of the law into a Wajong benefit as of 1 January 1998?

1

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: can a worker rely on Article 39 EC, as implemented by Article 7 of Regulation No 1612/68, (2) against the Member State of which he is a national where he has worked solely in that Member State but resides in the territory of another Member State? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: can a worker rely on Article 39 EC, as implemented by Article 7 of Regulation No 1612/68, (2) against the Member State of which he is a national where he has worked solely in that Member State but resides in the territory of another Member State?

2

| 3. | If the answers to Question 1 and 2 are in the affirmative: must Article 39 EC, as implemented by Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68, be understood as meaning that a provision of legislation which makes the grant or continuation of a benefit conditional on the person concerned being resident in the territory of the Member State whose legislation is at issue is always compatible therewith where that legislation provides for a special non-contributory benefit, as referred to in Article 4(2)a of Regulation No 1408/71, and is listed in Annex IIa to that regulation? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answers to Question 1 and 2 are in the affirmative: must Article 39 EC, as implemented by Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68, be understood as meaning that a provision of legislation which makes the grant or continuation of a benefit conditional on the person concerned being resident in the territory of the Member State whose legislation is at issue is always compatible therewith where that legislation provides for a special non-contributory benefit, as referred to in Article 4(2)a of Regulation No 1408/71, and is listed in Annex IIa to that regulation?

| 4. | If the answer to Questions 1 and 2 is in the affirmative and the answer to Question 3 is in the negative: must Community law (including, inter alia, Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68 and Article 39 EC and Articles 12 EC and 18 EC) be understood as meaning that sufficient justification can be found in the nature of the Wajong to invoke the residence condition against a citizen of the Union who is in full-time employment in the Netherlands and in that regard is subject solely to Netherlands legislation? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the answer to Questions 1 and 2 is in the affirmative and the answer to Question 3 is in the negative: must Community law (including, inter alia, Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68 and Article 39 EC and Articles 12 EC and 18 EC) be understood as meaning that sufficient justification can be found in the nature of the Wajong to invoke the residence condition against a citizen of the Union who is in full-time employment in the Netherlands and in that regard is subject solely to Netherlands legislation?

---

(1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition, 1971 (II), p. 416).

1

(2)  Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition, 1968 (II), p. 475).

2

---