Marie Landtová v Česká správa socialního zabezpečení.
Date: 2011-06-22
27. According to settled case-law, it is solely for the national court before which the dispute has been brought, and which must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, to determine in the light of the particular circumstances of the case both the need for a preliminary ruling in order to enable it to deliver judgment and the relevance of the questions which it submits to the Court (see, inter alia, Case C‑466/04 Acereda Herrera [2006] ECR I‑5341, paragraph 47).
28. Consequently, where the questions referred concern the interpretation of European Union law (‘EU law’), the Court is, in principle, bound to give a ruling (see, to that effect, Case C‑379/98 PreussenElektra [2001] ECR I‑2099, paragraph 38, and Case C‑169/07 Hartlauer  [2009] ECR I‑1721, paragraph 24). That is not the case, where, inter alia, the problem referred to the Court is purely hypothetical or where the interpretation or consideration of the validity of a rule of EU law which is sought by the national court has no relation to the actual facts of the main action or to its purpose (see, to that effect, Joined Cases C‑92/09 and C‑93/09 Volker and Markus Schecke [2010] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 40).
42. It must be borne in mind that the object of Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 is to ensure, in accordance with Article 39 EC, equality of treatment in matters of social security, without distinction based on nationality, for the persons to whom that regulation applies by abolishing all discrimination in that regard deriving from the national legislation of the Member States (Case C‑332/05 Celozzi [2007] ECR I‑563, paragraph 22).
44. As regards the requirement of residence in the territory of the Czech Republic, it must be recalled that the principle of equality of treatment, as referred to in Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1408/71, prohibits not only overt discrimination based on the nationality of the beneficiaries of social security schemes but also all covert forms of discrimination which, through the application of other distinguishing criteria, lead in fact to the same result ( Celozzi , paragraph 23).
45. Accordingly, conditions imposed by national law must be regarded as indirectly discriminatory where, although applicable irrespective of nationality, they affect essentially migrant workers or the great majority of those affected are migrant workers, where they are applicable without distinction but can more easily be satisfied by national workers than by migrant workers, or where there is a risk that they may operate to the particular detriment of the latter (see Celozzi , paragraph 24).
51. As regards the consequences of failure to observe the principle of equal treatment in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, it must be recalled that, where discrimination contrary to EU law has been established, as long as measures reinstating equal treatment have not been adopted, observance of the principle of equality can be ensured only by granting to persons within the disadvantaged category the same advantages as those enjoyed by persons within the favoured category, the latter arrangements, for want of the correct application of EU law, being the only valid point of reference remaining (see Case C‑18/95 Terhoeve [1999] ECR I‑345, paragraph 57 and the case‑law cited).
53. EU law does not, provided that the general principles of EU law are respected, preclude measures to re‑establish equal treatment by reducing the advantages of the persons previously favoured (see Case C‑200/91 Coloroll Pension Trustees [1994] ECR I‑4389, paragraph 33). However, before such measures are adopted, there is no provision of EU law which requires that a category of persons who already benefit from supplementary social protection, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, should be deprived of it.