CELEX: 62009CA0345
Language: en
Date: 2010-10-14 00:00:00
Title: Case C-345/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands)) — J.A. van Delft, J.C. Ramaer, J.M. van Willigen, J.F. van der Nat, C.M. Janssen, O. Fokkens v College voor zorgverzekeringen (Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Title III, Chapter 1 — Articles 28, 28a and 33 — Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 — Article 29 — Freedom of movement for persons — Articles 21 TFEU and 45 TFEU — Sickness insurance benefits — Recipients of old-age pensions or pensions for incapacity for work — Residence in a Member State other than the State responsible for payment of the pension — Provision of benefits in kind in the State of residence with the cost borne by the State responsible for payment of the pension — No registration in the State of residence — Obligation to pay contributions in the State responsible for payment of the pension — Amendment to the national legislation of the State responsible for payment of the pension — Continuity of sickness insurance — Different treatment of residents and non-residents)

18.12.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 346/17
            
         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 14 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands)) — J.A. van Delft, J.C. Ramaer, J.M. van Willigen, J.F. van der Nat, C.M. Janssen, O. Fokkens v College voor zorgverzekeringen
   (Case C-345/09) (1)
   
   (Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Title III, Chapter 1 - Articles 28, 28a and 33 - Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 - Article 29 - Freedom of movement for persons - Articles 21 TFEU and 45 TFEU - Sickness insurance benefits - Recipients of old-age pensions or pensions for incapacity for work - Residence in a Member State other than the State responsible for payment of the pension - Provision of benefits in kind in the State of residence with the cost borne by the State responsible for payment of the pension - No registration in the State of residence - Obligation to pay contributions in the State responsible for payment of the pension - Amendment to the national legislation of the State responsible for payment of the pension - Continuity of sickness insurance - Different treatment of residents and non-residents)
   2010/C 346/28
   Language of the case: Dutch
   
      Referring court
   
   Centrale Raad van Beroep
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicants: J.A. van Delft, J.C. Ramaer, J.M. van Willigen, J.F. van der Nat, C.M. Janssen, O. Fokkens
   
      Defendant: College voor zorgverzekeringen
   
      Re:
   
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Centrale Raad van Beroep — Interpretation of the EC Treaty, Articles 28, 28a, 33, and Annex VI, R, (1)(a) and (b), 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 (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416), and Article 29 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (I), p. 159) — Recipients of pensions — Obligation to register with the healthcare insurance board in the Netherlands — Obligation to pay a contribution
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   
               1.
            
            
               Articles 28, 28a and 33 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, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1992/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006, in conjunction with Article 29 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 311/2007 of 19 March 2007, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which recipients of pensions payable under the legislation of that State who reside in another Member State in which they are entitled under Articles 28 and 28a of Regulation No 1408/71 to the sickness benefits in kind provided by the competent institution of the latter Member State must pay, in the form of a deduction from their pension, a contribution in respect of those benefits even if they are not registered with the competent institution of their Member State of residence.
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Article 21 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which recipients of pensions payable under the legislation of that State who reside in another Member State in which they are entitled under Articles 28 and 28a of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended by Regulation No 1992/2006, to the sickness benefits in kind provided by the competent institution of the latter Member State must pay, in the form of a deduction from their pension, a contribution in respect of those benefits even if they are not registered with the competent institution of their Member State of residence.
               On the other hand, Article 21 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding such national legislation in so far as it induces or provides for — this being for the national court to ascertain — an unjustified difference of treatment between residents and non-residents as regards ensuring the continuity of the overall protection against the risk of sickness enjoyed by them under insurance contracts concluded before the entry into force of that legislation.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 11, 16.1.2010.