CELEX: 62013CN0103
Language: en
Date: 2013-03-04 00:00:00
Title: Case C-103/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 4 March 2013 — Snezhana Somova v Glaven direktor na Stolichno upravlenie ‘Sotsialno osiguryavane’

4.5.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 129/10
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 4 March 2013 — Snezhana Somova v Glaven direktor na Stolichno upravlenie ‘Sotsialno osiguryavane’
   (Case C-103/13)
   2013/C 129/18
   Language of the case: Bulgarian
   
      Referring court
   
   Administrativen sad Sofia-grad
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Snezhana Somova
   
      Defendant: Glaven direktor na Stolichno upravlenie ‘Sotsialno osiguryavane’
   
      Questions referred
   
   
               1.
            
            
               In the circumstances of the main proceedings should Article 48(1) TFEU and Article 49(1) and (2) TFEU be interpreted as permitting a provision of national legislation of a Member State such as Article 94(1) of the Kodeks na sotsialno osiguryavane (Social Security Code) in the main proceedings whereby insurance is required to have come to an end in order to grant an old age pension to a national of a Member State who at the time of applying for a pension is working as a self-employed person in another Member State and falls within the scope of application 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?
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Should Article 94(2) of Regulation No 1408/71 in conjunction with Article 48(1)(a) TFEU be interpreted as permitting an exception to the rule on aggregating periods of insurance in relation to periods completed in another Member State before the regulation was applied by the Member State to which the application for a pension is made, where the said provision affords the person insured the right to choose whether he or she specifies such periods for aggregation purposes and to assess the need for aggregation if, purely according to the law of the State to which the application is made, the period completed is insufficient to create entitlement to a pension and a sufficient period of time can only be achieved by paying insurance contributions?
               In these circumstances does Article 48(1)(a) TFEU permit the application of Article 46(2) of Regulation No 1408/71 on the aggregation of periods of insurance following commencement of the application of Regulation No 1408/71 to be waived at the discretion of the party insured where that party does not specify periods of insurance completed in another Member State in his or her application for a pension?
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Should Article 12(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 be interpreted as permitting recognition of periods of insurance as a result of paying insurance contributions as provided for under Bulgarian law in Paragraph 9(3) [of the transitional and final provisions of the] Kodeks za sotsialno osiguryavane (Social Security Code) where, as in the circumstances appertaining in the main proceedings, such recognised periods of insurance overlap with periods of insurance completed under the law of another Member State?
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Should Article 12(2) of Regulation No 1408/71 be interpreted as permitting a Member State to stop payments and demand the refunding of all payments of an old age pension granted to a national of that Member State under national law if the conditions laid down in the regulation only existed at the time that the pension was granted and, as a result of considerations based solely on national law according to which the insurance of the party concerned in another Member State had not come to an end by the time that the pension was granted, a period of insurance was recognised under national law due to payment of insurance contributions without taking into account periods of insurance which were being completed in another Member State at the time that the pension was granted and without considering whether a different amount of pension should have been assessed?
               If the refunding of pension payments is permissible, does it then follow from the principles of equivalence and effectiveness derived from European Union law (‘EU law’) that interest is due even where the national law of the Member State does not make provision for payment of interest in the case of repayment of a pension granted pursuant to an international treaty?