Provisional text
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Ninth Chamber)
26 March 2026 (*)
( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social security – Coordination of social security systems – Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 – Article 1(q)(iv) – Concept of ‘competent institution’ – Employer – Article 3(1)(a) – Concept of ‘sickness benefits’ – Continued remuneration in respect of temporary incapacity for work – Article 85(1) – Benefits payable under the legislation of a Member State for injury sustained in the territory of another Member State – Employer’s right of action against a liable third party – Rights of the injured party – Subrogation – Limits )
In Case C‑357/24,
REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Visoki trgovački sud (High Commercial Court, Croatia), made by decision of 3 May 2024, received at the Court on 16 May 2024, in the proceedings
Freistaat Bayern
v
Euroherc osiguranje d.d.,
THE COURT (Ninth Chamber),
composed of M. Condinanzi, President of the Chamber, N. Jääskinen and A. Kornezov (Rapporteur), Judges,
Advocate General: J. Richard de la Tour,
Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,
having regard to the written procedure,
after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
–        Euroherc osiguranje d.d., by D. Lauc, odvjetnik,
–        the Croatian Government, by G. Vidović Mesarek, acting as Agent,
–        the European Commission, by B.-R. Killmann and A. Koričić, acting as Agents,
having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to proceed to judgment without an Opinion,
gives the following
Judgment
1        This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 1(q)(iv), Article 3(1)(a) and Article 85(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 (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1, and corrigendum OJ 2004 L 200, p. 1), as amended by Regulation (EU) No 465/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 (OJ 2012 L 149, p. 4) (‘Regulation No 883/2004’).
2        The request has been made in proceedings between the Freistaat Bayern (Land of Bavaria, Germany) and Euroherc osiguranje d.d., an insurance company incorporated under Croatian law (‘Euroherc’), concerning reimbursement by Euroherc of sick pay paid by the Land of Bavaria to its employee X in respect of temporary incapacity for work following a road accident in Croatia.
Legal context
European Union law
3        Article 1(q)(iv) of Regulation No 883/2004 provides:
‘For the purposes of this Regulation:
…
(q)      “competent institution” means:
…
(iv)      in the case of a scheme relating to an employer’s obligations in respect of the benefits set out in Article 3(1), either the employer or the insurer involved or, in default thereof, the body or authority designated by the competent authority of the Member State concerned’.
4        Article 3(1)(a) and (f) of that regulation reads:
‘This Regulation shall apply to all legislation concerning the following branches of social security:
(a)      sickness benefits;
…
(f)      benefits in respect of accidents at work and occupational diseases’.
5        Article 9(1) of that regulation provides:
‘The Member States shall notify the European Commission in writing of the declarations made in accordance with point (l) of Article 1, the legislation and schemes referred to in Article 3, …’
6        Article 85(1) of that regulation provides:
‘If a person receives benefits under the legislation of one Member State in respect of an injury resulting from events occurring in another Member State, any rights of the institution responsible for providing benefits against a third party liable to provide compensation for the injury shall be governed by the following rules:
(a)      where the institution responsible for providing benefits is, under the legislation it applies, subrogated to the rights which the beneficiary has against the third party, such subrogation shall be recognised by each Member State;
(b)      where the institution responsible for providing benefits has a direct right against the third party, each Member State shall recognise such rights.’
German law
7        Paragraph 6(1) of the Gesetz über die Zahlung des Arbeitsentgelts an Feiertagen und im Krankheitsfall (Law on payment of remuneration during public holidays and in the event of illness), of 26 May 1994 (BGBl. I S. 1014, 1065; ‘the German Law on Continued Remuneration’) provides:
‘If under the legal provisions, an employee has the right to claim compensation from a third party for loss of earnings due to incapacity for work, that right shall be transferred to the employer to the extent that the employer, under the present law, continues to pay the employee’s remuneration and also the contributions
which the employer pays to the Federal Labour Agency, the employer’s share of social security and care insurance contributions, and supplementary pension and survivors’ insurance contributions.’
Croatian law
8        Article 27 of the Zakon o obveznim osiguranjima u prometu (Law on compulsory transport insurance) of 9 December 2005 (NN 151/05), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings (NN 36/09, 75/09, 76/13 and 152/14), provides, in paragraphs 1 and 2 thereof:
‘(1)      The insurance company shall be obliged to compensate establishments engaged in the provision of health, pension or disability insurance for actual harm incurred under the civil liability of its insured person and within the limits of the obligations resulting from the insurance contract.
(2)      Actual harm, within the meaning of paragraph 1 above, means the costs of medical treatment and other necessary costs incurred in accordance with the laws on health insurance as well as the proportionate amount of the old-age pension or disability pension of the injured person or his or her family members.’
9        Article 36 of the Zakon o obveznom zdravstvenom osiguranju (Law on compulsory health insurance) of 21 June 2013 (NN 80/13), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings (NN 137/13) (‘the Law on Health Insurance’), provides, in point 1 of paragraph 1 thereof:
‘Under the rights arising from compulsory health insurance, insured persons shall be entitled to:
1.      sick pay during a period of temporary incapacity to work or impediments to returning to work due to the use of health care or in connection with other circumstances listed in Article 39 of the present law (‘sick pay’) …’
10      Article 39 of that law provides, in point 1 thereof:
‘An insured person is entitled to sick pay in connection with the use of health care under compulsory health insurance or in connection with other circumstances stipulated in the present law if:
1.      the insured person is temporarily unable to work due to illness or injury, or if he or she has been admitted to a medical facility for treatment or tests …’
11      Article 40 of that law provides, in point 1:
‘The sick pay in connection with the use of health care referred to in [point 1 of] Article 39 of the present law shall be paid to the insured person from own resources:
1.      by the employer – a natural or legal person
– for the first 42 days of temporary incapacity to work, and also for as long as the insured person works in a third country to which the legal or natural person has delegated him or her or is self- employed in a third country.’
12      Paragraph 41(3) of the same law provides:
‘The sick pay for the period of temporary incapacity to work referred to in [point 1 of] Article 39 … of the present law which is payable as from the [forty-third] day … of temporary incapacity to work shall be calculated and paid by the employer, which is a natural or legal person, with the proviso that the Hrvatski zavod za zdravstveno osiguranje [(Croatian Institute for Health Insurance; ‘the Institute’)] shall be obliged to reimburse the sick pay paid within 45 days from the date of receipt of a request for reimbursement.’
13      Article 136(1) of the Law on Health Insurance states:
‘The Institute shall be required to seek compensation for the damage from the person who caused the illness, injury or death of the insured person.’
14      Article 140 of that law provides:
‘In the cases listed in Article 136 of the present law, the Institute shall be obliged also to seek compensation for the injury caused directly from the insurer with which those persons are insured in respect of liability for injury caused to third parties, under the legislation on compulsory insurance against that risk.’
15      Article 142 of that law provides:
‘The Institute shall be obliged to seek compensation in the cases provided for in the present law irrespective of whether the injury was caused by the payment of benefits to which the insured person was entitled from compulsory health insurance funds, that is to say from the State budget.’
The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling
16      On 18 April 2015, while cycling in Šibenik (Croatia), X, an employee of the Land of Bavaria, was the victim of a road accident involving a vehicle driven by Y and insured by Euroherc. Y was declared liable for that accident. The question whether X contributed to the injury he suffered has not yet been settled by the courts having jurisdiction.
17      X was treated in Germany. He was temporarily unable to work during three periods from 21 April to 21 May 2015, from 16 February to 15 April 2016 and from 8 November 2016 to 5 January 2017, respectively. During those periods, the Land of Bavaria, as X’s employer, paid him sick pay in the total amount of EUR 28 825.83.
18      In addition, as part of an out-of-court settlement, Euroherc paid X compensation for the actual injury caused by the accident, covering the cost of assistance and care services, financial loss, representation costs and other expenses, as well as non-material damage, in a total amount of 43 433.43 kuna (HRK) (approximately EUR 5 764.61).
19      The Land of Bavaria brought an action before the Trgovački sud u Zagrebu (Commercial Court, Zagreb, Croatia) seeking that Euroherc be ordered to reimburse it for the sick pay it paid to X.
20      In support of that action, the Land of Bavaria claimed that, as X’s employer, it must be regarded as a ‘competent institution’ within the meaning of Article 1 (q)(iv) of Regulation No 883/2004, on the ground that the sick pay which it paid to X falls within the concept of ‘sickness benefits’ referred to in Article 3(1)(a) of that regulation.
21      The Land of Bavaria also maintained that, under Article 85(1) of Regulation No 883/2004, its subrogation to the rights of its employee X vis-à-vis Euroherc, as provided for by German law, must be recognised in the main proceedings.
22      In that regard, it relies on Article 6(1) of the German Law on Continued Remuneration, in accordance with which the employer is subrogated to the rights of its employee to compensation from a third party for the loss of income which that employee has suffered as a result of incapacity for work, where that employer has continued to pay that employee’s remuneration and to pay the contributions which it is required to pay.
23      The Land of Bavaria thus argued that the payment to X of sick pay led to his receiving benefits under that law on account of injuries sustained at the time of the accident which took place in Croatia and that, consequently, it must be subrogated to the rights of its employee vis-à-vis third parties.
24      Euroherc disputed that line of argument, maintaining that the facts of the case do not fall within the scope of Regulation No 883/2004, on the ground, inter alia, that that regulation governs the coordination of social security systems and not compensation for indirect harm suffered by an employer as a result of the payment, in respect of temporary incapacity for work, of sick pay to its employee during his or her sick leave following an accident. It also argues that only institutions responsible for the management of the social security systems of the Member States have the status of ‘competent institution’ within the meaning of that regulation.
25      By judgment of 21 November 2023, the Trgovački sud u Zagrebu (Commercial Court, Zagreb) upheld the action brought by the Land of Bavaria. Euroherc brought an appeal against that judgment before the Visoki trgovački sud (High Commercial Court, Croatia), which is the referring court.
26      The referring court is uncertain, first, as to whether an employer, such as the Land of Bavaria, falls within the concept of ‘competent institution’ within the meaning of Article 1 of Regulation No 883/2004. Secondly, it asks whether the concept of ‘sickness benefits’, referred to in Article 3(1)(a) of that regulation, includes the payment of sick pay in respect of temporary incapacity for work during sick leave following an accident in another Member State, which is neither an accident at work nor an occupational disease. Thirdly, it asks whether a motor insurance company, such as Euroherc, may be obliged to reimburse the sick pay paid to the victim by his or her employer, such as that paid to X by the Land of Bavaria.
27      Assuming those questions are answered in the affirmative, the referring court also seeks interpretation of Article 85(1) of Regulation No 883/2004. It notes that, under Croatian law, where an employee receives sickness benefits paid by his or her employer, the latter has no remedy against the person who caused the injury or that person’s insurer. Nor can the employer be subrogated to the victim’s rights against the
person who caused the injury or that person’s insurer. It adds that the recent case-law of the Vrhovni sud (Supreme Court, Croatia) confirms that such a right to compensation must be expressly provided for by law and that no provision of the Law on Health Insurance grants the employer a right of action against the person who caused the injury or his or her insurer in order to obtain reimbursement of the sick pay which it paid to its employee on account of such temporary incapacity for work.
28      In those circumstances, the Visoki trgovački sud (High Commercial Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
‘Must Article 85(1) of [Regulation No 883/2004] be interpreted as meaning that in order for an employer, as the institution obliged to pay benefits, to have a recourse claim for sickness benefits paid to an employee for an injury resulting from events that occurred in the territory of another Member State against the third party liable to provide compensation for the injury or against its civil liability insurer, it is necessary for there to exist a legal basis for claiming such compensation in the Member State where the injury occurred?’
Procedure before the Court
29      By decision of the President of the Court of 3 October 2024, the proceedings in the present case were stayed pending delivery of the judgment in Case C‑7/24. Following the delivery of the judgment of 12 June 2025, Deutsche Rentenversicherung Nord and BG Verkehr (C‑7/24, EU:C:2025:439), those proceedings were resumed by decision of the President of the Court of 18 June 2025.
30      By letter of 18 June 2025, the Court notified that judgment to the referring court and asked it whether, in the light of that judgment, it intended to maintain its request for a preliminary ruling in the present case.
31      By letter received at the Registry of the Court of Justice on 22 July 2025, the referring court stated that it was maintaining its request. It stated that the present case raises questions of the interpretation of Article 1(q)(iv) and Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation No 883/2004 which were not addressed by the Court of Justice in that judgment, since, first, the incapacity for work in the case pending before it is not the result of an accident at work or an occupational disease and, secondly, the claim for reimbursement of the benefits paid was made by the injured party’s employer.
Consideration of the question referred
32      By its question, as clarified in its reply to the Court’s request referred to in paragraph 31 of the present judgment, the referring court asks, in essence, first, whether Article 1(q)(iv) of Regulation No 883/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘competent institution’, within the meaning of that provision, covers an employer established in a Member State which has paid, in respect of temporary incapacity for work, sick pay to an employee during his sick leave following an accident in another Member State, which is neither an accident at work nor an occupational disease, and, secondly, whether Article 3(1)(a) of that regulation must be interpreted as meaning that such pay falls within the concept of ‘sickness benefits’ referred to in that provision. If the answer to those first two questions is in the affirmative, it asks, in addition, whether Article 85(1) of that regulation must be interpreted as meaning that an employer, as the institution responsible for providing benefits, is entitled to claim reimbursement of the sickness benefits paid to its employee in respect of damage which occurred in another Member State from the third party responsible, or from the insurer of that third party, only if there is, in the Member State in which that injury occurred, a legal basis for obtaining such reimbursement.
33      In the first place, it should be recalled that, according to Article 1(q)(iv) of Regulation No 883/2004, the concept of ‘competent institution’, within the meaning of that provision, means, inter alia, ‘in the case of a scheme relating to an employer’s obligations in respect of the benefits set out in Article 3(1), either the employer or the insurer involved or, in default thereof, the body or authority designated by the competent authority of the Member State concerned’.
34      It follows from that provision that an employer may be regarded as a ‘competent institution’, within the meaning of that provision, where it is required, under a particular scheme, to provide benefits falling under Article 3(1) of that regulation.
35      It is necessary, in the second place, to clarify the scope of the benefits referred to in Article 3(1). By virtue of point (a) of that provision, that regulation applies to ‘all legislation concerning the following branches of social security: … sickness benefits’.
36      In that regard, Article 9 of that regulation provides that ‘the Member States shall notify the … Commission in writing of … the legislation and schemes referred to in Article 3 …’.
37      In the present case, the Commission states that the Federal Republic of Germany notified, under Article 9 of Regulation No 883/2004, continued remuneration in the event of temporary incapacity for work as a ‘cash sickness benefit’ and designated the employer as the ‘competent institution’ within the meaning of Article 1(q)(iv) and Article 3(1)(a) of that regulation.
38      It should however be emphasised that the distinction between benefits falling within the scope of Regulation No 883/2004 and those which are outside it is based essentially on the constituent elements of each benefit, in particular its purpose and the conditions for its grant, and not on whether it is classified as a social security benefit by national legislation (judgment of 11 April 2024, Sozialministeriumservice, C‑116/23, EU:C:2024:292, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited).
39      The Court has consistently held that a benefit may be regarded as a social security benefit in so far as it is granted, without any individual and discretionary assessment of personal needs, to recipients on the basis of a legally defined position and provided that it relates to one of the risks expressly listed in Article 3(1) of that regulation. These two conditions are cumulative (judgment of 11 April 2024, Sozialministeriumservice, C‑116/23, EU:C:2024:292, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited).
40      The first of those conditions is satisfied if a benefit is granted with regard to objective criteria which, if satisfied, give entitlement to the benefit without the competent authority being able to take other personal circumstances into consideration (judgment of 11 April 2024, Sozialministeriumservice, C‑116/23, EU:C:2024:292, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited).
41      In the present case, continued remuneration in Germany in the event of temporary incapacity for work appears to be granted in the light of objective criteria which confer entitlement to the benefit without the employer’s being able to take account of the personal circumstances of his, her or its employee other than those giving rise to that incapacity. It thus appears that the first of the two conditions is satisfied, subject to the checks which it is for the referring court to carry out.
42      As regards the second of those conditions, Article 3(1)(a) of that regulation explicitly refers to ‘sickness benefits’, which are benefits whose essential aim is the patient’s recovery, by securing the care which his or her condition requires, and which thus cover the risk connected to a state of ill health (judgment of 11 April 2024, Sozialministeriumservice, C‑116/23, EU:C:2024:292, paragraph 36 and the case-law cited).
43      In that regard, it must be held that continued remuneration in the event of temporary incapacity for work relates to the risk connected to a state of ill health, in that it ensures that the income of the employee placed on sick leave continues during his or her temporary incapacity for work in order, inter alia, that he or she might benefit from the rest and care required by his or her state of health.
44      Thus, the Court held, in essence, in paragraphs 15 to 19 of the judgment of 3 June 1992, Paletta (C‑45/90, EU:C:1992:236), as regards German legislation predating the German Law on Continued Remuneration, that such continued remuneration benefits in the event of illness satisfy the two conditions set out in paragraph 39 of the present judgment and must, therefore, be regarded as ‘sickness benefits’ within the meaning of Article 4(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1), a provision succeeded by Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation No 883/2004.
45      In those circumstances, it must be held, subject to the checks which it is for the referring court to carry out, that continued remuneration benefits paid, in one Member State, on account of temporary incapacity for work during sick leave following an accident in another Member State, which is neither an accident at work nor an occupational disease, such as the sick pay paid to X, fall within the concept of ‘sickness benefits’ referred to in Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation No 883/2004. It follows that an employer which has paid such benefits must be regarded as a ‘competent institution’ within the meaning of Article 1(q)(iv) of Regulation No 883/2004.
46      In the third place, as regards the interpretation of Article 85(1) of Regulation No 883/2004, it must be noted, first that that provision has the object of allowing a social security institution of a Member State, which has paid social security benefits following an injury sustained in the territory of another Member State, to exercise against the third party liable for the injury the rights of action provided for by the legislation which it administers, either by means of subrogation or by direct action. The rights thus conferred on national social security institutions constitute a logical and fair counterpart to the extension of the obligations of those institutions throughout the entire European Union as a result of the provisions of that regulation (judgment of 12 June 2025, Deutsche Rentenversicherung Nord and BG Verkehr, C‑7/24, EU:C:2025:439, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited).
47      That provision is thus to be regarded as a conflict-of-laws rule which requires the national court hearing an action for compensation brought against the party liable for the injury to apply the law of the Member State to which the institution responsible belongs, not only to determine whether that institution is subrogated by law to the rights of the injured party or those entitled under that party, but also to determine the nature and extent of the claims to which the institution responsible for benefits is subrogated (judgment of 12 June 2025, Deutsche Rentenversicherung Nord and BG Verkehr, C‑7/24, EU:C:2025:439, paragraph 29 and the case-law cited).
48      If the national court were to apply the law of the Member State in whose territory the injury was sustained to determine the extent of the rights of the institution responsible, it might have to deprive Article 85(1) of Regulation No 883/2004 of part or all of its practical effect. That would be the case, in particular, if the legislation of the Member State in whose territory the injury had been sustained provided that the subrogation or direct rights did not cover certain types of claim which the institution responsible could enforce, by means of subrogation or direct rights, in the Member State to which it was subject (judgment of 12 June 2025, Deutsche Rentenversicherung Nord and BG Verkehr, C‑7/24, EU:C:2025:439, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited).
49      It follows that the existence of the right of subrogation enjoyed by the institution responsible for providing benefits, in this case the Land of Bavaria, and the nature and extent of the claims to which it is subrogated, are determined by the law of the Member State to which that institution belongs, and therefore, in the present case, by German law.
50      Secondly, it must be stated that Article 85(1) of Regulation No 883/2004, by contrast, is intended only to ensure that any right of action which an institution responsible for benefits may enjoy by virtue of the legislation which it applies is recognised by the other Member States. That provision does not purport to alter the applicable rules for determining whether and to what extent non-contractual liability on the part of the third party who caused the injury is to be incurred. The third party’s liability continues to be governed by the substantive rules which are normally to be applied by the national court before which proceedings are brought by the injured party or those entitled under him or her, that is to say, in principle, the legislation of the Member State in whose territory the injury was sustained (judgment of 12 June 2025, Deutsche Rentenversicherung Nord and BG Verkehr, C‑7/24, EU:C:2025:439, paragraph 32 and the case-law cited).
51      It follows that the rights that the injured party or those entitled under him or her have against the person who caused the injury and the requirements to be satisfied to enable an action in damages to be brought before the courts of the Member State where the injury was sustained must be determined in accordance with the law of that State, including any applicable rules of private international law (judgment of 12 June 2025, Deutsche Rentenversicherung Nord and BG Verkehr, C‑7/24, EU:C:2025:439, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited).
52      It is to such rights alone, thus determined, that the institution responsible for benefits can be subrogated. Such subrogation cannot have the effect of creating additional rights for the recipient of the benefits against third parties (judgment of 12 June 2025, Deutsche Rentenversicherung Nord and BG Verkehr, C‑7/24, EU:C:2025:439, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited).
53      Thirdly, the right of subrogation covers only the compensation to which the injured party or his or her legal successors are entitled under the legislation of the Member State in the territory of which the injury occurred which corresponds to the benefits paid by the institution liable to pay benefits and not compensation granted for non-material damage or in respect of other items of damage of a personal nature (judgment of 12 June 2025, Deutsche Rentenversicherung Nord and BG Verkehr, C‑7/24, EU:C:2025:439, paragraph 35 and the case-law cited).
54      Accordingly, the right of subrogation provided for by the legislation of a Member State for a benefit paid under that legislation, for the purposes of Article 85(1) of Regulation No 883/2004, may extend to a benefit provided for by the legislation of the Member State in whose territory the events giving rise to a trigger event, such as a road accident, occurred, only where both of those benefits are sufficiently comparable as regards their respective subject matters and purposes (see, to that effect, judgment of 12 June 2025, Deutsche Rentenversicherung Nord and BG Verkehr, C‑7/24, EU:C:2025:439, paragraph 43 and the case-law cited).
55      In the present case, the referring court emphasises that Croatian law neither confers on an employer the right to obtain from the third party responsible for the injury, or his or her insurer, reimbursement of the sick pay which it has paid to an employee on the basis of temporary incapacity for work, nor does it confer on that employee a right to such compensation which he or she could claim against the third party responsible for the injury, or his or her insurer, and to which the employer could be subrogated.
56      In particular, it is apparent from the referring court’s account of the Croatian legislation on motor insurance and health insurance and the observations of the Republic of Croatia and of the Commission submitted to the Court that, under Croatian law, the employer is to pay its employees, using its own resources, sick pay from the first to the forty-second day of temporary incapacity for work. By contrast, from the forty-third day of temporary incapacity for work onwards, the Institute which implements compulsory sickness insurance in Croatia is obliged to compensate the employer, on request, for the sick pay it pays and which is due from that date. That Institute is then, in turn, required to claim from the person who caused the injury or his or her insurer the funds which it has paid to the employer on that basis.
57      It thus appears that, while, for the period from the first to the forty-second day of temporary incapacity for work, Croatian legislation does not grant the employer any right to claim from the person who caused the injury or his or her insurer reimbursement of the sick pay which it paid to its employee, from the forty-third day, the employer may obtain reimbursement for that pay from the Institute, which is then responsible for claiming from the person who caused the injury and, where appropriate, his or her insurer reimbursement for the sick pay which it paid to the employer on that basis.
58      In the present case, as the Commission observes, Article 3 of the German Law on Continued Remuneration appears to limit to 6 weeks, that is to say, 42 days, a German employer’s obligation to pay sick pay to its employee in the event of temporary incapacity for work on account of illness. It follows that the subject matter of the action in the main proceedings appears to be limited to the sick pay paid to X from the first to the forty-second day of his temporary incapacity for work, which it is for the referring court to ascertain. In those circumstances, the subrogation relied on by the Land of Bavaria on the basis of Article 85(1) of Regulation No 883/2004 cannot, as has been recalled in paragraph 52 of the present judgment, have the effect of creating, for X, additional rights which Croatian law does not recognise against the third party liable for compensation for the injury resulting from the accident or its insurer.
59      By contrast, there is nothing in the request for a preliminary ruling to suggest that the dispute in the main proceedings also concerns the reimbursement of sick pay paid after the forty-second day of temporary incapacity for work, with the result that the question whether the Land of Bavaria could, in the event that it has paid such pay, seek reimbursement from the Institute, which is not, moreover, a party to the main proceedings, or from the insurer of the third party liable to compensate for the injury resulting from the accident, does not appear to be relevant to the resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings.
60      In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred is that:
–        Article 1(q)(iv) of Regulation No 883/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘competent institution’ within the meaning of that provision may cover an employer required, under a scheme relating to its obligations, to provide benefits falling within the scope of Article 3(1) of that regulation;
–        Article 3(1)(a) of that regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘sickness benefits’ referred to in that provision may cover continued remuneration benefits paid in a Member State on the basis of temporary incapacity for work during sick leave following an accident in another Member State, which is neither an accident at work nor an occupational disease; and
–        Article 85(1) of that regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the employer, as the institution responsible for providing benefits, is entitled to claim reimbursement of sickness benefits paid to its employee in respect of injury which occurred in another Member State from the third party responsible, or from the insurer of that third party, only if there is, in the Member State in which the injury occurred, a legal basis for obtaining reimbursement of those benefits or benefits comparable as regards their respective subject matters and purposes.
Costs
61      Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.
On those grounds, the Court (Ninth Chamber) hereby rules:
Article 1(q)(iv) 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, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 465/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012,
must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘competent institution’ within the meaning of that provision may cover an employer required, under a scheme relating to its obligations, to provide benefits falling within the scope of Article 3(1) of that regulation, as amended.
Article 3(1)(a) of Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 465/2012,
must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘sickness benefits’ referred to in that provision may cover continued remuneration benefits paid in a Member State on the basis of temporary incapacity for work during sick leave following an accident in another Member State, which is neither an accident at work nor an occupational disease.
Article 85(1) of Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 465/2012,
must be interpreted as meaning that the employer, as the institution responsible for providing benefits, is entitled to claim reimbursement of sickness benefits paid to its employee in respect of injury which occurred in another Member State from the third party responsible, or from the insurer of that third party, only if there is, in the Member State in which the injury occurred, a legal basis for obtaining reimbursement of those benefits or benefits comparable as regards their respective subject matters and purposes.
[Signatures]
*      Language of the case: Croatian.