CELEX: 62014CN0453
Language: en
Date: 2014-09-29 00:00:00
Title: Case C-453/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 29 September 2014  — Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse, Alfred Knauer

22.12.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 462/15
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 29 September 2014 — Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse, Alfred Knauer
   (Case C-453/14)
   (2014/C 462/24)
   Language of the case: German
   
      Referring court
   
   Verwaltungsgerichtshof
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicants: Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse, Alfred Knauer
   
      Defendant: Landeshauptmann von Vorarlberg
   
      Intervening party: Rudolf Mathis
   
      Questions referred
   
   Is Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (1), having regard to Article 45 TFEU, to be interpreted as meaning that old-age pensions under an occupational pension scheme (which is initiated and guaranteed by the state, is intended to enable the previous standard of living of the individual concerned to be maintained in an appropriate way, operates on the basis of the principle of capitalisation, is compulsory in principle but may also provide for ‘supplementary, non-compulsory’ contributions that exceed the statutory minimum amount and for correspondingly higher benefits, and the implementation of which falls to a pension fund to be set up or used by the employer, such as — in the present case — the ‘second-pillar’ pension scheme in Liechtenstein), and old-age pensions under a statutory pension scheme (which is likewise initiated and guaranteed by the state, is intended to enable the previous standard of living of the individual concerned to be maintained in an appropriate way, but operates on the basis of the ‘pay-as-you-go’ principle, and the implementation of which falls to pension insurance funds established by statute, such as — in the present case — Austria’s pension scheme) are ‘equivalent’ within the meaning of the abovementioned provision?
   
      (1)  OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1.