CELEX: 62018CN0134
Language: en
Date: 2018-02-19 00:00:00
Title: Case C-134/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 19 February 2018 — Maria Vester v Rijksdienst voor Ziekte- en Invaliditeitsverzekering (Riziv)

28.5.2018   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 182/9
            
         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 19 February 2018 — Maria Vester v Rijksdienst voor Ziekte- en Invaliditeitsverzekering (Riziv)
   (Case C-134/18)
   (2018/C 182/09)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   
      Referring court
   
   Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen
   
      Parties to the main proceedings
   
   
      Applicant: Maria Vester
   
      Defendant: Rijksdienst voor Ziekte- en Invaliditeitsverzekering (Riziv)
   
      Questions referred
   
   ‘Are Articles 45 TFEU and 48 TFEU infringed in the case where the last competent Member State refuses, upon commencement of incapacity for work, after expiry of a waiting period of 52 [Or. 9] weeks of incapacity for work, during which illness benefits were awarded, entitlement to invalidity benefit on the basis of Article 57 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, and the other, previously competent Member State applies, for the examination of the entitlement to a pro-rata invalidity benefit, a 104-week waiting period in accordance with the national law of that Member State?
   If that is the case, is it compatible with the right of free movement that the person concerned, during this waiting time gap, is dependent on social assistance, or do Articles 45 TFEU and 48 TFEU oblige the previously competent Member State to examine the entitlement to invalidity benefits after expiry of the waiting period under the legislation of the last competent Member State, even if the national law of the previously competent Member State does not permit this?’
   
      (1)  OJ 2004, L 166, p. 1.