Keywords

Summary



Keywords

1 . REFERENCES FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING - JURISDICTION OF THE COURT - LIMITS

( EEC TREATY , ART . 177 )

2 . SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS - OLD-AGE AND DEATH ( PENSIONS ) INSURANCE - BENEFITS DUE BY VIRTUE OF THE LEGISLATION OF A SINGLE MEMBER STATE - REDUCTION BY WAY OF AGGREGATION AND APPORTIONMENT - NOT PERMISSIBLE

( EEC TREATY , ART . 51 ; REGULATION NO 3 OF THE COUNCIL , ARTS . 27 AND 28 )

3 . SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS - OLD-AGE AND DEATH ( PENSIONS ) INSURANCE - AGGREGATION OF INSURANCE PERIODS - RIGHTS TO BENEFITS RELATING TO PERIODS WHICH DO NOT OVERLAP - NO UNJUSTIFIED OVERLAPPING OF BENEFITS

( REGULATION NO 3 OF THE COUNCIL , ART . 27 )

4 . SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS - OLD-AGE AND DEATH ( PENSIONS ) INSURANCE - RULE IN ARTICLE 28 ( 4 ) OF REGULATION NO 3 - SCOPE

( REGULATION NO 3 OF THE COUNCIL , ART . 28 ( 4 ))

Summary

1 . IN CONNEXION WITH THE TASK ENTRUSTED TO IT BY ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY THE COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF COMMUNITY LAW TO A GIVEN CASE OR TO CRITICIZE THE WAY IN WHICH A NATIONAL COURT APPLIES COMMUNITY LAW . HOWEVER , THE NEED TO ARRIVE AT A SERVICEABLE INTERPRETATION OF COMMUNITY LAW PERMITS THE COURT TO EXTRACT FROM THE DETAILS OF THE DISPUTE IN THE MAIN ACTION THE INFORMATION NECESSARY FOR AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE QUESTION REFERRED TO IT AND FOR THE FORMULATION OF AN APPROPRIATE ANSWER .

2 . THE AGGREGATION OF INSURANCE PERIODS AND THE APPORTIONMENT OF BENEFITS PROVIDED FOR BY ARTICLES 27 AND 28 OF REGULATION NO 3 HAVE NO RELEVANCE IN THE CASE OF A STATE IN WHICH THE RESULT SOUGHT BY ARTICLE 51 OF THE TREATY IS ALREADY ATTAINED BY VIRTUE OF NATIONAL LEGISLATION ALONE . THEY CANNOT THEREFORE BE EFFECTED , WITHOUT BEING INCOMPATIBLE WITH ARTICLE 51 OF THE TREATY , IF THEIR EFFECT IS TO REDUCE THE BENEFITS WHICH THE PERSON CONCERNED MAY CLAIM BY VIRTUE OF THE LAWS OF A SINGLE MEMBER STATE ON THE BASIS SOLELY OF THE PERIODS OF INSURANCE COMPLETED UNDER THOSE LAWS PROVIDED , HOWEVER , THAT THAT METHOD DOES NOT LEAD TO AN OVERLAPPING OF BENEFITS FOR ONE AND THE SAME PERIOD .

3 . THE OVERLAPPING OF A BENEFIT , ACQUIRED UNDER NATIONAL LAW ALONE ON THE BASIS OF NATIONAL CONTRIBUTION PERIODS WITH A BENEFIT ACQUIRED IN ANOTHER STATE BY MEANS OF AGGREGATION IN A CASE WHERE , AS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 27 , THE PERIODS OF INSURANCE ' ' DO NOT OVERLAP ' ' , DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ADVANTAGE WHICH IS CONTRARY TO COMMUNITY LAW . THE ADVANTAGE OF AGGREGATION IS THE ACQUISITION OF A RIGHT TO A PENSION WHICH WOULD NOT OTHERWISE ARISE , THE PENSION ACQUIRED IN THIS WAY BEING CALCULATED IN PROPORTION ONLY TO THE INSURANCE PERIOD COMPLETED IN THE MEMBER STATE IN QUESTION , TO THE EXCLUSION OF ANY PERIOD COMPLETED ELSEWHERE .

4 . THE COMPETENT INSTITUTION OF A MEMBER STATE MAY NOT RELY ON THE PROVISIONS OF REGULATION NO 3 OR IN PARTICULAR IN ARTICLE 28 ( 4 ) IN ORDER TO REFUSE THE GRANT TO A WORKER OF BENEFITS CALCULATED PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 27 AND 28 OF THAT REGULATION OR TO REDUCE THEM ON THE GROUND THAT THAT WORKER IS RECEIVING A PENSION PROVIDED BY THE INSTITUTION OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE PURSUANT TO THE LEGISLATION OF THAT STATE ALONE .