Case C-382/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 4 July 2013 — C.E. Franzen and Others v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank (Svb)
Date: 2013-07-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, Netherlands, application of EU law, family benefit, free movement of persons, free movement of workers, interpretation of the law, migrant worker, social security, temporary employment








C_2013274EN.01000802.xml










21.9.2013   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 274/8





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 4 July 2013 — C.E. Franzen and Others v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank (Svb)
(Case C-382/13)
2013/C 274/14
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Centrale Raad van Beroep

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: C.E. Franzen, H.D. Giesen, F. van den Berg

Respondent: Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank (Svb)

Questions referred







1a.


Must Article 13(2)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71 (1) be interpreted as meaning that a resident of a Member State who comes within the scope of that regulation and who for not more than two or three days per month is employed in the territory of another Member State on the basis of an on-call contract, is on that ground subject there to the social security legislation of the State of employment?










1b.


If Question 1(a) is answered in the affirmative, does the subjection to the social security legislation of the State of employment apply both on the days on which the employment activities are performed and on the days on which those activities are not performed and, if so, how long does that subjection continue after the final employment activities have in fact been carried out?










2.


Does Article 13(2)(a), in conjunction with Article 13(1), of Regulation No 1408/71 preclude a migrant worker to whom the social security legislation of the State of employment applies from being regarded, by virtue of national legislation of the State of residence, as an insured person under the AOW [Algemene ouderdomswet (Netherlands General Law on Old-Age Insurance)] in the latter State?










3a.


Must European Union law, in particular the provisions concerning freedom of movement for workers and/or citizens of the Union, be interpreted as precluding, in the circumstances of the present cases, the application of a national provision such as Article 6a of the AOW and/or the AKW [Algemene kinderbijslagwet (Netherlands General Law on Child Benefits)], under which a migrant worker residing in the Netherlands is excluded there from insurance cover under the AOW and/or the AKW on the ground that he is subject exclusively to German social security legislation, even in circumstances where that worker, as a ‘geringfügig Beschäftigte’ (person in minor employment), is excluded in Germany from insurance cover for purposes of the ‘Altersrente’ (old-age pension) and is not entitled to ‘Kindergeld’ (child allowance)?










3b.


Is it significant, for purposes of the answer to Question 3(a), that it was possible to take out voluntary insurance under the AOW or to request the Svb (Netherlands Social Insurance Bank) to conclude an agreement as referred to in Article 17 of Regulation No 1408/71?






(1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council 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 (OJ, English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416).