Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2018:162
Date: 2018-03-07
Language of the case: Latvian
Court formation: Tenth Chamber
Subject matter: Free movement of workers
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Latvia

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber), 7 March 2018 Freedom of movement for persons — Workers — Equal treatment — National legislation on the payment of maternity benefits — Calculation of the amount — Classification of a period of employment for an EU institution as a period of unemployment by applying the average contribution basis fixed in the Member State in question — Substantial reduction in the amount of maternity benefits as a result of having carried out a professional activity outside of that Member State — Not permissible (Art. 45 TFEU) Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings that, for the purposes of determining the average contribution basis when calculating the amount of maternity benefit, equates the months of the reference period in which the person concerned worked in an EU institution and was not insured in that Member State with a period of unemployment and applies to them the average contribution basis in that Member State, which has the effect of substantially reducing the amount of the maternity benefit granted to that person in comparison with the amount to which she would have been entitled had she been gainfully employed in that Member State alone. It is important, in that regard, to note that although the applicable national legislation does not, as such, require payment of State social insurance contributions during the reference period as a condition for a maternity benefit to be granted, the fact remains that the application of the rules for calculating the benefit at issue produce a similar result, since the amount of the benefit granted to a worker who was employed by an EU institution is substantially less than that to which she could have been entitled had she worked in the territory of the Member State concerned and contributed to its social security system. It follows that national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings constitutes an obstacle to and, therefore, discourages the pursuit of an occupation outside the Member State in question, whether in another Member State or within an EU institution or an international organisation, in so far as, by accepting such a post, a worker who was previously or subsequently insured in the Member State in question receives, under the social security regime of that Member State, a benefit of an amount substantially lower than that to which she would have been entitled had she not exercised her right to free movement. (see paras 25, 27, 38, operative part)