Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2022:75
Date: 2022-02-03
Language of the case: German
Subject matter: Social security for migrant workers;Free movement of workers
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Austria

summary of that case-law by Advocate General Bobek in his Opinion in E.B. (C‑258/17, EU:C:2018:663, point 47). I note, in passing, that, in point 48 of his Opinion, he found that the same approach is also reflected in the context of an accession of a new Member State to the European Union, with regard to the national application of (new) EU rules: past facts (that is, facts pre-dating accession) may be taken into account if they are relevant and need to be (freshly) assessed in the process of the application of the new law(s) post-accession. 42 On the other hand, Article 87(5) of Regulation No 883/2004 provides that ‘the rights of a person to whom a pension was provided prior to the date of application of this Regulation in a Member State may, at the request of the person concerned, be reviewed, taking into account this Regulation’ (my emphasis). 43 See Reichel-Albert, paragraphs 35 and 45, as well as the operative part of the judgment. 44 I find that argument to be more convincing than the one defended by the Spanish Government. According to that government, the distinguishing factor between Reichel-Albertand the present case is that, unlike the Appellant in the main proceedings, Ms Reichel-Albert continued to receive unemployment benefits after she stopped working in Germany. I do not think that that fact alone ought to make a difference in how the two situations relate to one another. It is true that, in Reichel-Albert, the applicant was unemployed as of 30 June 1980 and drew unemployment benefit from Germany until October 1980, whereas she settled in Belgium in July 1980 (while she was still receiving that benefit). Nonetheless, that does not change the fact that she did not start raising her family until 25 May 1981, several months after she had stopped receiving that benefit. 45 C‑522/10, EU:C:2012:114. 46 See point 67 of that Opinion.