# C_2020061EN.01001001.xml

| 24.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/10

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 December 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovak Republic) — UB v Generálny riaditeľ Sociálnej poisťovne Bratislava

(Case C-447/18) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Coordination of social security systems - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 3 - Matters covered - Old-age benefit - Freedom of movement for workers within the European Union - Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 - Article 7 - Equal treatment of national workers and migrant workers - Social advantages - Legislation of a Member State restricting the grant of an ‘additional benefit for sportspersons who have represented the State’ to the citizens of that State)

(2020/C 61/11)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: UB

Defendant: Generálny riaditeľ Sociálnej poisťovne Bratislava

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | Article 3(1)(d) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that an additional benefit paid to certain high-level sportspersons who have represented a Member State or its legal predecessors in international sporting competitions is not covered by the ‘old-age benefit’ referred to in that provision and, consequently, falls outside the scope of that regulation. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 3(1)(d) 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 must be interpreted as meaning that an additional benefit paid to certain high-level sportspersons who have represented a Member State or its legal predecessors in international sporting competitions is not covered by the ‘old-age benefit’ referred to in that provision and, consequently, falls outside the scope of that regulation.

| 2. | Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which makes receipt of an additional benefit introduced for certain high-level sportspersons who have represented that Member State or its legal predecessors in international sporting competitions conditional upon, in particular, the person applying for the benefit having the nationality of that Member State. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which makes receipt of an additional benefit introduced for certain high-level sportspersons who have represented that Member State or its legal predecessors in international sporting competitions conditional upon, in particular, the person applying for the benefit having the nationality of that Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 17.9.2018.

---