Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2025:995
Date: 2025-12-18
Language of the case: Slovak

Summary C-717/24 – 1 
Case C-717/24 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged: 
21 October 2024 
Referring court: 
Najvyšší správny súd Slovenskej republiky (Slovakia) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
15 August 2024 
Applicant: 
BD 
Defendant: 
Sociálna poisťovňa, ústredie 
  
Subject matter of the main proceedings 
Request for a preliminary ruling made in the context of a dispute relating to the 
review of the decision of 10 December 2021 in proceedings concerning the appeal 
on a point of law lodged by the applicant against the judgment of the Krajský súd 
v Trnave (Regional Court, Trnava, Slovakia) of 17 April 2023. 
Subject matter and legal basis of the request  
Interpretation of Article 51(1) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council for the purpose of determining whether advantages 
granted under the legislation of the Member State where the decision as to 
benefits is taken apply to periods completed in other Member States, even though 
the legislation of other Member States does not provide for any such advantages. 
Questions referred for a preliminary ruling 
Must Article 51(1) 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 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 15. 8. 2024 – CASE C-717/24 
 
2  
be interpreted as applying to an old-age pension the decision on which was 
adopted by the competent institution of a Member State, 
1. only on condition that a ‘special scheme for employed or self-employed 
persons’ is established under the legislation of that Member State, 
1a. and, if so, what characterises such a ‘special scheme’ (for example, the fact 
that it is administered by a separate institution, it is financed separately, or it is 
intended only for a particular group of employed or self-employed persons), 
or 
2. where the legislation of that Member State does not provide for such a 
‘special scheme’, but merely allows a particular group of persons who have 
completed periods of insurance solely in the context of a specific activity (for 
example, miners working in deep mines) to acquire the right, on the basis of such 
periods, to an old-age pension under more advantageous conditions than other 
persons who are otherwise employed or self-employed? 
Provisions of European Union law relied on 
Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems; recitals 1 and 13 and 
Articles 1(e) and 51(1) (‘Regulation No 833/2004’) 
Provisions of national law relied on 
Zákon č. 100/1988 Zb. o sociálnom zabezpečení, účinný od 1. októbra 1988 (Law 
No 100/1988 on social security, in force from 1 October 1988) (‘Law 
No 100/1988’) 
Paragraph 1 Basic principles 
‘(2) Every citizen shall have the right to social security under this Law. The State 
shall provide social security benefits and services […]. 
(4) The amount of pension benefits shall depend primarily on the employee’s 
merits, that is to say the length of employment […] and on the category of work 
performed’. 
Paragraph 8 Employment 
‘(1) Employment means 
(a) employment […] relationship, […]’. 
Paragraph 14 Categories of work performed 
SOCIÁLNA POISŤOVŇA, ÚSTREDIE 
 
3 
‘(1) For pension purposes, jobs shall be divided into three categories according to 
the type of work performed. 
(2) Category I shall include jobs where predominantly hazardous activities are 
performed continuously and within a calendar month, where there is frequent and 
permanent deterioration of workers’ health due to exposure to harmful physical 
and chemical agents, including 
(a) mining jobs with a permanent underground workplace in deep mines, 
(b) other types of mining jobs where work is performed underground in deep 
mines, 
[…] 
(4) Occupational category III shall include jobs which are not classified under 
categories I or II’. 
Paragraph 21 Conditions for acquiring the right to an old-age pension 
‘(1) A citizen shall acquire the right to an old-age pension if he or she has been 
employed for at least 25 years and attained the age of at least 
(a) 55 where he or she has been employed for at least 15 years in an occupation 
referred to in Paragraph 14(2)(a) […], 
(c) 55 where he or she has been employed for at least 20 years in an occupation 
referred to in Paragraph 14(2)(b) to (h), 
(d) 58 where he or she has been employed for at least 20 years in an occupation 
referred to in Paragraph 14(2)(i) to (l), or 
(e) 60’. 
Zákon č. 235/1992 Zb. o zrušení pracovných kategórií a o niektorých ďalších 
zmenách v sociálnom zabezpečení (Law No 235/1992 eliminating employment 
categories and making certain further changes to social security) (‘Law 
No 235/1992’) 
Paragraph 14 
‘(1) For pension purposes, jobs shall be, up to 31 December 1992 classified 
according to three categories depending on the type of work performed. Jobs 
under categories I and II shall be set out in the sectoral lists of occupations 
classified under categories I and II issued before 1 June 1992; jobs not classified 
under categories I or II shall be included in category III’. 
Paragraph 15 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 15. 8. 2024 – CASE C-717/24 
 
4  
‘For pension purposes, jobs engaged in after 31 December 1992 shall be regarded 
as jobs falling under category III’. 
Paragraph 175 
‘Entitlements arising from the classification of jobs under categories I and II or 
service in function categories I and II shall be taken into account until 
31 December 2016’. 
Zákon č. 461/2003 Z. z. o sociálnom poistení (Law No 461/2003 on social 
insurance) (‘Law No 461/2003’) 
Paragraph 1 Subject matter and scope of the Law 
‘(1) This Law defines social insurance, lays down the scope of social insurance 
[…]. 
(3) This Law shall not apply to officers of the Police Corps, the Slovak 
Information Service, the National Security Office, the Judiciary Guards and Prison 
Wardens Corps, the Fire and Rescue Corps, the Mountain Rescue Service, armed 
officers of the Financial Administration […], professional soldiers of the armed 
forces, soldiers in special service […], whose social insurance is governed by 
separate provisions […]’. 
Paragraph 2 Scope of social insurance 
‘Social insurance under this Law shall be […] 
(b) pension insurance, including 
1. old-age insurance as income security for old age and death, 
2. disability insurance, 
[…]’. 
Paragraph 13 
‘(2) Old-age pension benefits shall be paid as follows from pension insurance, 
under the conditions laid down in this Law 
(a) from old-age insurance 
1. old-age pension […]’. 
Paragraph 65 Conditions for acquiring the right to an old-age pension 
SOCIÁLNA POISŤOVŇA, ÚSTREDIE 
 
5 
‘(1) An insured person shall acquire the right to an old-age pension if he or she 
has been insured for pension purposes for at least 15 years and attained retirement 
age. 
(2) The insured person’s retirement age shall be determined in accordance with 
Annex 3a, unless otherwise provided by this Law in Paragraph 274 […]’. 
Paragraph 112 Changes in entitlement to benefit, changes in entitlement to 
payment of benefit and changes in amount of benefit 
‘(1) The benefit shall be granted […] from the date on which the benefit […] is 
payable, […] up to a maximum of three years back from the date of the 
application for the benefit […], if it is established retroactively that the benefit 
[…] 
(d) was granted from a date later than that from which it is payable’. 
Paragraph 274 
‘(1) Entitlements arising from the classification of jobs under categories I and II 
shall be maintained’. 
Zmluva medzi Slovenskou republikou a Českou republikou o sociálnom 
zabezpečení, uverejnená v Slovenskej republike oznámením č. 318/1994 Z. z. 
(Agreement between the Slovak Republic and the Czech Republic on social 
security, published in the Slovak Republic by way of Notification No 318/1994) 
(‘Social Security Agreement)’ 
Article 20(1) 
‘Periods of insurance completed before the date of the division of the Czech and 
Slovak Federal Republic shall be regarded as periods of insurance completed in 
the Contracting State on the territory of which the employer of the citizen was 
established on the date of the division of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic 
or on the last day before that date’. 
Succinct presentation of the facts and procedure in the main proceedings 
1 From 1 September 1973 to 30 June 1976, the applicant served an apprenticeship 
and then from 1 July 1976 worked as a miner in a deep mine in the employment of 
OKD. According to the entry in the commercial register, the employer’s registered 
office on 31 December 1992 was Karviná, a town in the Czech Republic. That 
employment relationship lasted until 31 August 1995 and he continued to perform 
the same work in that time. From 1 January to 30 September 1996 he worked for 
another employer in the Czech Republic and from 1 October 1996 to 
31 December 2005 was self-employed in the Czech Republic. From 13 December 
2006 he worked in various jobs in the Slovak Republic. 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 15. 8. 2024 – CASE C-717/24 
 
6  
2 By decision of 20 May 2013, the Czech Social Security Administration granted 
the applicant an old-age pension under Czech law. On 3 June 2013, the applicant 
also applied to the defendant for a pension under Slovak law. However, by 
decisions of 19 June and 19 August 2013, the defendant rejected that application. 
As grounds, it stated that the applicant had not attained the retirement age of 62 
under Paragraph 65(2) of Law No 461/2003. It also analysed the possibility 
whether, under Paragraph 274(1) of that law, the applicant’s retirement age could 
be 55 under Paragraph 21(1)(a) of Law No 100/1988, that is to say 15 years of 
category I employment. In the view of the defendant, although the applicant 
worked as a miner in a deep mine until 31 August 1995, that entire period of 
employment must be considered as a period of insurance in the Czech Republic. 
Since in the Czech Republic the job categories were eliminated on 1 January 
1993, for the purposes of determining the Slovak pension, his period of 
employment could be treated as work performed under category I within the 
meaning of Paragraph 14(2)(a) of Law No 100/1988 only until 31 December 
1992. By that date, however, his period of employment amounted to only 14 years 
and 63 days, that is to say it was less than the 15 years required under 
Paragraph 21(1)(a) of Law No 100/1988. Both of those decisions of the defendant 
were upheld by the courts, which, however, did not refer to Article 51(1) of 
Regulation No 883/2004 in their statement of grounds since the applicant had not 
relied thereon. The defendant also rejected the applicant’s new application in 
2016. 
3 In the present case, in a new application of 2 October 2020 the applicant again 
applied to the defendant for payment of an old-age pension retroactively from 
2013. The defendant first rejected that application by decision of 12 January 2021 
on almost the same grounds as in 2013. The applicant also appealed against that 
decision, claiming that the retirement age of 55, which he had already attained in 
2013, applied in his case. On 29 April 2021, the defendant adopted a new decision 
in which it granted him an old-age pension of a certain amount from 2 October 
2020. It took the view that it was on 2 October 2020 that the applicant attained the 
retirement age of 62 years and 8 months within the meaning of Paragraph 65(2) of 
Law No 461/2003 and Annex No 3a to Law No 461/2003. In the decision at issue, 
the director-general of the defendant upheld the earlier decision of 12 January 
2021. He considered that the period from 1 January 1993 to 31 August 1995, 
during which the applicant worked in the Czech Republic as a miner in a deep 
mine, could not be taken into account as category I employment under 
Paragraph 14(2)(a) of Law No 100/1988 in force in the Slovak Republic since his 
job did not fall under occupational category I in accordance with Czech 
legislation. He pointed out that on form E 205 of 22 January 2013 the Czech 
institution likewise did not regard that period as employment in occupational 
category I. He also referred to Article 1(t) of Regulation No 883/2004 and 
Decision No H6 of the Administrative Commission for the Social Security 
Coordination of 16 December 2010 and stressed that periods completed in 
accordance with Czech law must be accepted without the possibility of 
questioning the quality thereof. As his employment from 1 January 1993 to 
31 August 1995 did not fall under occupational category I, the applicant had 
SOCIÁLNA POISŤOVŇA, ÚSTREDIE 
 
7 
worked less than 15 years in that category and could not be subject to 
Paragraph 21(1)(a) of Law No 100/1988. 
4 The administrative action brought by the applicant against that decision was 
dismissed by the administrative court by decision of 17 April 2023. In addition to 
Paragraphs 65 and 274 of Law No 461/2003 and Paragraphs 14 and 21 of Law 
No 100/1988, the applicant also relied on Articles 1(t), 6 and 52 of Regulation 
No 883/2004. It concurred with the defendant’s conclusion that Czech law since 
1 January 1993 did not include the concept of a favoured category of employment 
and therefore the Slovak institution likewise could not classify the period of the 
applicant’s employment thus. The applicant therefore did not meet the condition 
relating to at least 15 years’ category I employment within the meaning of 
Paragraph 14(2)(a) of Law No 100/1988 and consequently his retirement age 
could not be 55 within the meaning of Paragraph 21(1)(a) of that Law. The 
applicant lodged with the referring court an appeal on a point of law against that 
judgment, in which he again sought the application of Article 51 of Regulation 
No 883/2004. 
Background to the dispute 
5 The Slovak Republic and the Czech Republic were part of the Czechoslovak 
Federation from 1 January 1969 to 31 December 1992. Their basic constitutional 
relations were governed by ústavný zákon č. 143/1968 Zb. o česko-slovenskej 
federácii (Constitutional Law No 143/1968 on the Czechoslovak Federation), 
Article 22 of which provided that the federation had the power to lay down 
uniform rules, including on pension provision. 
6 It was apparent from Paragraphs 1(2) and (4), 8(1)(a), 14(1), 14(2)(a) and (b), 
14(4) and 21(1)(a), (c), (d) and (e) of Law 100/1988 that, although the pension 
scheme was unified, each type of work performed was classified under one of 
three categories. A person who had been employed in occupational category I 
(referred to in Paragraph 21(1)) for a given period of time did not acquire the right 
an old-age pension on that basis alone. However, that person could expect to 
acquire that entitlement at a lower age (in the present case, 55) than a person who 
had not worked in a category I job (60). Therefore, the period at the end of which 
a person had merely to attain the retirement age in order to acquire a full right to 
an old-age pension applied to that person. The law was adopted within the 
framework of the federation and therefore was in force in both the Slovak 
Republic and the Czech Republic. 
7 In 1992 Law No 235/1992 was adopted within the federation, which entered into 
force on 1 June 1992 in the territory of the entire federation, that is to say both the 
Slovak Republic and the Czech Republic, and which eliminated the division of 
employment into occupational categories and consequently laid down the 
conditions for acquiring the right to old-age pensions. That law was an 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 15. 8. 2024 – CASE C-717/24 
 
8  
amendment to Law No 100/1988, which deleted the reference to occupational 
categories from Paragraph 1(3) of the latter. 
8 On 29 October 1992, the Slovak Republic and the Czech Republic also concluded 
a social security agreement, which entered into force on 3 May 1993. 
Article 20(1) of that agreement provided that the entire period of old-age pension 
insurance, including periods of employment prior to 1 January 1993, was to be 
regarded as a period of only one of the contracting states, that is to say either the 
Czech Republic or the Slovak Republic, regardless of where the employee 
concerned actually worked during that period. 
9 The Czechoslovak Federation ceased to exist on 31 December 1992, and on 
1 January 1993 the Slovak Republic and the Czech Republic became its legal 
successors. Pursuant to Article 152(1) of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic, 
all previous laws remained in force in the Slovak Republic, including Law 
No 100/1988, as amended by Law No 235/1992. Similarly, Law No 100/1988 was 
adopted by the Czech Republic, as a result of which, as of 1 January 1993 that law 
remained in force in each of the successor republics, but in each of them it was 
considered part of their own legal order and therefore its wording began to differ. 
10 As a result of the changes made, from 1 January 1993 the division into types of 
jobs within categories I and II was abolished, and all types of jobs were to be 
included in category III. During the period from 1 June to 31 December 1992, job 
types continued to be classified by category, but their classification was 
determined by the law as it stood before 1 June 1992. In other words, from 1 June 
1992 no new job types could be classified under categories I and II, and even 
those which had previously been classified thereunder ceased to be employment 
under categories I and II from 1 January 1993. 
11 In the Czech Republic, a fundamental change occurred only from 1 January 1996, 
when zákon č. 155/1995 Zb. o dôchodkovom poistení (Law No 155/1995 on 
pension insurance) entered into force, repealing, inter alia, Paragraphs 1(3), 8, 14, 
15 and 21 of Law No 100/1988. In the Czech Republic, since 1 January 1993 
employment has not been classified according to occupational categories pursuant 
to Law No 235/1992, cited above. Under Paragraph 74 of Law 155/1995, ‘the 
right to reduce the age limit for entitlement to an old-age pension under the 
provisions in force prior to 1 January 1996 after a certain period of employment 
within occupational category I […] shall be maintained until 31 December 2016’. 
12 In the Slovak Republic, on the other hand, the cited Paragraphs 14(1), 15 and 175 
of Law No 100/1988 were gradually amended by Law Nos 59/1993, 71/1994, 
365/1994, 308/1995, 376/1996, 376/1997 and 355/1999, under which, until 
31 December 1999, employment in the Slovak Republic was divided into three 
occupational categories within the meaning of Paragraph 14(1) of Law 
No 100/1988, as amended by Law No 235/1992. At the same time, until 
31 December 1999, employment within the category I could grant an entitlement 
SOCIÁLNA POISŤOVŇA, ÚSTREDIE 
 
9 
to an old-age pension at an earlier age, under Paragraph 21(1) of Law 
No 100/1988. 
13 Law No 100/1988 was only repealed in the Slovak Republic by Law 
No 461/2003, the provisions of which, as in force on 10 December 2021, are 
decisive in the present case. 
Succinct presentation of the reasoning in the request for a preliminary ruling 
14 The essence of the dispute between the applicant and the defendant is the 
assessment of the employment which the applicant performed in the Czech 
Republic in the period from 1 January 1993 to 31 August 1995. Under the Czech 
legislation at the time, that type of work was no longer included in occupational 
category I, while under Slovak legislation a similar type of work (miner in a deep 
mine) was included in occupational category I. Until 31 December 1999, Slovak 
legislation allowed, after 15 years of such employment, early retirement at the age 
of 55. That state of affairs was maintained pursuant to Paragraph 274(1) of Law 
No 461/2003, under which the issue of the applicant’s pension is determined in 
the present case. On the basis of the established facts, the defendant considered 
that the applicant had only worked 14 years 63 days in such employment up to 
31 December 1992. If, pursuant to Article 51 of Regulation No 883/2004, the 
period from 1 January 1993 to 31 August 1995 at issue could also be regarded as 
category I employment under Slovak legislation, the applicant would have 
exceeded the required ceiling of 15 years of such employment and therefore his 
retirement age would have been 55. Although the applicant attained that age in 
2013, according to Paragraph 112(1) of Law No 461/2003 the granting of any 
benefit retroactively is limited to a maximum of three years from the date on 
which the right to the benefit was acquired. As the applicant submitted an 
application in 2020, that would mean that he would have been entitled to payment 
of an old-age pension for at least the years 2017-2020. The interpretation of the 
provision of EU law, to which the request relates, is therefore relevant to the 
present case as the amount to which the applicant would ultimately be entitled 
turns directly on it. 
15 Although the period from 1993 to 1995, which is relevant in the present case, falls 
before the accession of the Slovak Republic to the European Union, that does not, 
in the view of the referring court, exclude the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, 
which follows from Article 87(2) of Regulation No 883/2004. For the purposes of 
that regulation, periods completed under Czech and Slovak legislation during the 
time of the joint federation or later, even before accession to the Union, are also to 
be taken into account. Furthermore, it is clear from the established facts that the 
applicant could not have acquired the right to an old-age pension before 2013, that 
is to say before attaining the age of 55. 
16 In the view of the referring court, the purpose of Article 51(1) of Regulation 
No 883/2004 is to ensure that the advantages which the legislation of a Member 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 15. 8. 2024 – CASE C-717/24 
 
10  
State makes conditional on the performance of a specific activity as an employed 
person are linked to that particular activity as an employed person, even if the 
person concerned performs it in another Member State. However, in the view of 
the referring court, it is not clear what the condition for taking those advantages 
into account is. 
17 It is clear from the wording of Article 51(1) that the legislation of a Member State 
makes the granting of that advantage conditional on ‘a specific activity as an 
employed or self-employed person or in an occupation which is subject to a 
special scheme’. The Slovak version of that provision links the concept of ‘subject 
to a special scheme’ only to the concept of ‘occupation’. The French, English and 
Polish versions, for example, provide similarly. The Czech and German versions 
of the article in question, on the other hand, are less explicit and may also be 
linked to the concept of a specific activity as an employed or self-employed 
person. 
18 In view of the different language versions referred to above, the article in question 
can be interpreted in two ways. In the first case, that provision would apply even 
if the legislation of the Member State where the decision to grant a benefit was 
adopted did not provide for any specific scheme, but merely linked certain 
advantages to the performance of a specific activity as an employed or self-
employed person under one general scheme. In the second case, that provision 
would only apply if such a special scheme existed in the Member State where the 
decision to grant the benefit was adopted, but not in a Member State where 
periods of a specific activity as an employed person are taken into account more 
favourably only under the general scheme. 
19 From the wording of the second subparagraph of Article 51(1) of Regulation 
No 883/2004, it therefore seems to follow that that provision suggests that the 
periods referred to in the first subparagraph of paragraph 1 thereof are taken into 
account specifically for the purpose of ‘receipt of the benefits of a special 
scheme’. Despite the linguistic ambiguity of the first subparagraph of 
Article 51(1), that could therefore suggest that the whole of Article 51(1) applies 
only where the legislation of the Member State in which the decision to grant a 
benefit is adopted divides the scheme into a ‘specific’ and a ‘general’ one. 
20 The aim of the rules on the coordination of social security schemes is, inter alia, to 
ensure that persons moving within the Union retain the rights and advantages 
which they have acquired and acquire, as well as to facilitate the free movement 
of persons and contribute towards the improvement of their standard of living and 
conditions of employment. However, the above interpretation, according to which 
periods of insurance completed as a result of specific activity as an employed 
person in a Member State should, in particular, only be taken into account in 
another Member State if there is a ‘special scheme’ in that other Member State, 
could constitute an obstacle to the free movement of persons. 
SOCIÁLNA POISŤOVŇA, ÚSTREDIE 
 
11 
21 Even if Article 51(1) of Regulation No 883/2004 were to be interpreted as 
applying only where the legislation of the Member State in which the decision on 
the benefit is adopted provides for a special scheme, the regulation is not entirely 
clear as to the characteristics of such a special scheme. Article 1(e) of that 
regulation defines a special scheme for civil servants, the essence of the definition 
of a special scheme for civil servants being that it is distinct from the general 
scheme to which other civil servants in the Member State are subject and that all 
civil servants or certain groups thereof are subject to it. 
22 However, the purpose of Article 51(1) of that regulation differs from that of the 
definition of a special scheme for civil servants. That provision concerns, in 
particular, the attainment and maintenance of the advantages linked to the 
performance of specific activities, such as those which are linked to those 
activities by the legislation of one Member State, even if they have been 
performed in part under the legislation of other Member States. In view of that 
separate objective, it is not excluded that the concept contained in that article may 
be interpreted differently, that is say less strictly. 
23 In the present case, neither Law No 461/2003 nor Law No 100/1988 classified 
miners working in deep mines under a separate scheme which applied exclusively 
to them. On the contrary, both those laws provide for a single social security 
scheme for all employed and self-employed persons. The advantages linked to the 
work of a miner in a deep mine, as well as with other occupations included in 
occupational category I pursuant to Paragraph 14(2) of Law No 100/1988, were 
merely advantages under that single system. However, those advantages were part 
of a systematic favouring those types of employment, which was reflected, for 
example, in a lower retirement age or, for example, in a special old-age pension 
calculation pursuant to Paragraph 22 of that law. 
24 The referring court adds that it does not consider the references to Articles 1(t) 
and 6 of Regulation No 883/2004 or the content of form E 205 of 22 January 2013 
to be relevant in the context of the question asked. In particular, it is clear from the 
content of that form that the Czech institution confirmed the period from 1 March 
1985 to 20 September 1996 as a period of compulsory insurance without 
providing details. In an annex, it attached, in accordance with Czech Law 
No 155/1995, the applicant’s personal pension insurance certificate, in which the 
individual periods are classified solely under Czech legislation. Although 
Articles 1(t) and 6 of Regulation No 883/2004 guarantee that periods completed in 
other Member States must be accepted without questioning their quality, that does 
not mean that the Member State in which the decision on the benefit is adopted 
cannot assess them more favourably if such more favourable assessment arises 
from its legislation.