Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2015:756
Date: 2015-11-12
Language of the case: German
Subject matter: Social Policy
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Austria

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber), 21 January 2016 1. Social security — Migrant workers — EU legislation — Matters covered —Declarations of the Member States concerning old-age benefits — Scope (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 883/2004, Art. 9) 2. EU law — Interpretation — Methods — Literal, contextual and purposive interpretation 3. Social security — Migrant workers — EU legislation — Matters covered — Old-age benefits — Benefits under an occupational pension scheme of one Member State and benefits under a statutory pension scheme of another Member State — Equivalent benefits (European Parliament and Council Regulation No 883/2004, Art. 5(a)) 1. When old-age benefits have been mentioned in a declaration of a Member State under Article 9 of Regulation No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, they fall within the scope of that regulation. In that regard, where an occupational pension scheme was covered, in its entirety, by a declaration made under Article 9 of Regulation No 883/2004 by the Principality of Liechtenstein, which must be treated in the same way as a Member State for the purposes of applying that regulation, the old-age benefits under that scheme must be regarded as falling within the scope of the regulation. (see paras 23, 24) 2. See the text of the decision. (see para. 27) 3. Article 5(a) of Regulation No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems must be interpreted as meaning that old-age benefits provided under an occupational pension scheme of one Member State and those provided under a statutory pension scheme of another Member State — both schemes being within the scope of that regulation — are equivalent benefits within the meaning of that provision, where both categories of benefits have the same aim of ensuring that their recipients maintain a standard of living commensurate with that which they enjoyed prior to retirement. The fact that there are differences relating, inter alia, to the way in which the rights to those benefits have been acquired, or to the fact that it is possible for the insured to obtain voluntary supplementary benefits, does not give grounds for reaching a different conclusion. An objective justification for applying differential treatment to the old-age benefits in question might, in some circumstances, exist if contributions for sickness benefits were levied in one Member State on the old-age benefits provided under the occupational pension scheme of the other Member State, even though such contributions had already been levied in the latter Member State. (see paras 36-38, operative part)