# C_2007272EN.01002001.xml

| 15.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 272/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 272/20

---

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur dated 19 March 2007 in the case of Jón Gunnar Þorkelsson v Gildi-lífeyrissjóður (Gildi Pension Fund)

(Case E-4/07)

(2007/C 272/08)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 19 March 2007 from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 26 March 2007, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Jón Gunnar Þorkelsson v Gildi-lífeyrissjóður (Gildi Pension Fund), on the following questions:

| 1. | Does the term ‘social insurance’ as it is to be understood under the EEA Agreement, and in particular Article 29 of the main text of the Agreement and Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, cover the entitlement to disability benefit that arises in pension fund schemes such as the Icelandic one? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Does the term ‘social insurance’ as it is to be understood under the EEA Agreement, and in particular Article 29 of the main text of the Agreement and Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, cover the entitlement to disability benefit that arises in pension fund schemes such as the Icelandic one?

| 2. | Whether or not the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, the District Court asks whether the provisions of the EEA Agreement on the free movement of workers, and in particular Articles 28 and 29, can be interpreted as meaning that a rule in the Articles of Association of Icelandic pension funds which makes a specific benefit right (the right to projection of entitlements) subject to the condition that the individual involved has paid premiums to an Icelandic pension fund that is a party to the Agreement on Relations between the Pension Funds, for at least 6 of the 12 months preceding the date of an accident, is compatible with the EEA Agreement when the reason why the individual is unable to meet this condition is that he has moved to another State within the EEA in order to pursue employment comparable to that which he pursued previously, and he has paid into a pension fund in that State? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Whether or not the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, the District Court asks whether the provisions of the EEA Agreement on the free movement of workers, and in particular Articles 28 and 29, can be interpreted as meaning that a rule in the Articles of Association of Icelandic pension funds which makes a specific benefit right (the right to projection of entitlements) subject to the condition that the individual involved has paid premiums to an Icelandic pension fund that is a party to the Agreement on Relations between the Pension Funds, for at least 6 of the 12 months preceding the date of an accident, is compatible with the EEA Agreement when the reason why the individual is unable to meet this condition is that he has moved to another State within the EEA in order to pursue employment comparable to that which he pursued previously, and he has paid into a pension fund in that State?

| 3. | Is Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971, on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, to be interpreted as meaning that workers are to present their compensation claims in the State in which they were resident and in which they had social security entitlements at the time of their injury? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Is Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971, on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, to be interpreted as meaning that workers are to present their compensation claims in the State in which they were resident and in which they had social security entitlements at the time of their injury?

---