Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 23 October 1986. - A. J. M. van Roosmalen v Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Gezondheid, Geestelijke en Maatschappelijke Belangen. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Raad van Beroep Utrecht - Netherlands. - Social security - Residence requirement - Concept of 'self-employed person'. - Case 300/84.
European Court reports 1986 Page 03097
Summary
Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
Keywords
1 . SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS - SELF-EMPLOYED PERSONS - DEFINITION - PRIEST- INCLUDED
( REGULATION NO 1408/71 OF THE COUNCIL , ART . 1 ( A ) ( IV ), AS AMENDED BY REGULATION NO 1390/81 )
2 . SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS - ' LEGISLATION ' OF A MEMBER STATE WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 1 ( J ) OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 - CRITERION FOR DETERMINING THE SCOPE OF THE TERM - AFFILIATION TO A SOCIAL SECURITY SCHEME IN A MEMBER STATE
( REGULATION NO 1408/71 OF THE COUNCIL , ART . 1 ( J ))
3 . SOCIAL SECURITY FOR MIGRANT WORKERS - BENEFITS - RESIDENCE REQUIREMENT - WAIVER - SELF-EMPLOYED PERSONS - DATE OF COMING INTO EFFECT
( COUNCIL REGULATION NO 1390/81 , ART . 2 ( 4 ))
Summary
1 . THE EXPRESSION ' SELF-EMPLOYED PERSON ' WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 1 ( A ) ( IV ) OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 , AS AMENDED BY REGULATION NO 1390/81 , APPLIES TO PERSONS WHO ARE PURSUING OR HAVE PURSUED , OTHERWISE THAN UNDER A CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT OR BY WAY OF SELF-EMPLOYMENT IN A TRADE OR PROFESSION , AN OCCUPATION IN RESPECT OF WHICH THEY RECEIVE INCOME PERMITTING THEM TO MEET ALL OR SOME OF THEIR NEEDS , EVEN IF THAT INCOME IS SUPPLIED BY THIRD PARTIES BENEFITING FROM THE SERVICES OF A MISSIONARY PRIEST .
2 . THE ESSENTIAL CRITERION FOR DETERMINING THE SCOPE OF THE TERM ' LEGISLATION ' IN ARTICLE 1 ( J ) OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 IS NOT THE PLACE IN WHICH THE OCCUPATION IS PURSUED BUT THE LINK WHICH EXISTS BETWEEN THE WORKER , REGARDLESS OF THE PLACE IN WHICH HE PURSUED OR IS PURSUING HIS OCCUPATION , AND THE SOCIAL SECURITY SCHEME IN A MEMBER STATE UNDER WHICH HE HAS COMPLETED PERIODS OF INSURANCE .
SINCE THE DECISIVE CRITERION FOR THE APPLICABILITY OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 IS THE FACT THAT THE INSURED PERSON IS AFFILIATED TO A SOCIAL SECURITY SCHEME IN A MEMBER STATE , IT IS OF NO IMPORTANCE THAT HE PURSUED HIS ACTIVITIES WHOLLY OR PARTLY OUTSIDE THE TERRITORY OF THE MEMBER STATES OF THE COMMUNITY .
3 . ARTICLE 2 ( 4 ) OF REGULATION NO 1390/81 APPLIES TO A REFUSAL BY A SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION TO AWARD AN INVALIDITY BENEFIT ON THE GROUND THAT THE INSURED PERSON HAS NOT PREVIOUSLY STAYED OR RESIDED IN THE MEMBER STATE CONCERNED FOR A CONTINUOUS SPECIFIED PERIOD . HOWEVER , THE INSURED PERSON MAY CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF THAT PROVISION ONLY