Ministerstvo práce a sociálních věcí v B.
Date: 2014-09-11
19. It should be noted that 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 cir cumstances 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. Consequently, where the questions submitted concern the interpretation of EU law, the Court is in principle bound to give a ruling. The presumption of relevance attaching to questions referred by national courts for a preliminary ruling may be rebutted only in exceptional cases, where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of EU law sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or to its purpose, or where the problem is hypothetical and the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted (see, inter alia, the judgment in Iberdrola Distribución Eléctrica , C‑300/13, EU:C:2014:188, paragraph 16).
21. It should be observed as a preliminary point that, in the context of the procedure laid down by Article 267 TFEU providing for cooperation between national courts and the Court of Justice, it is for the latter to provide the national court with an answer which will be of use to it and enable it to determine the case before it. In that light, the Court may have to reformulate the questions referred to it (the judgments in Krüger , C‑334/95, EU:C:1997:378, paragraphs 22 and 23, and Hewlett-Packard Europe , C‑361/11, EU:C:2013:18, paragraph 35).
23. According to the Court’s established case-law, the objective of the provisions of Title II of Regulation No 1408/71 is to ensure, in particular, that the persons concerned are, in principle, subject to the social security scheme of only one Member State in order to prevent more than one system of national legislation from being applicable and to avoid the complications which may result from that situation. That principle is expressed, in particular, in Article 13(1) of that regulation (see, inter alia, the judgment in Hudzinski and Wawrzyniak , C‑611/10 and C‑612/10, EU:C:2012:339, paragraph 41).
24. In the present case, the legislation applicable to Mrs B.’s situation, in so far as concerns her entitlement to family benefits, is determined by Article 13(2)(f) of Regulation No 1408/71. A person who has ceased all employment in the territory of a Member State and thus no longer satisfies the conditions laid down in Article 13(2)(a) of that regulation and who, moreover, does not satisfy the conditions laid down in any other provision of that regulation for the legislation of a Member State to be applicable to him is subject, by virtue of Article 13(2)(f) of the regulation, to the legislation of the State in which he was previously employed, if he continues to reside there (see, to that effect, the judgment in Kuusijärvi , C‑275/96, EU:C:1998:279, paragraphs 29 and 34).
26. In that regard, it should be recalled that, pursuant to Article 1(h) of Regulation No 1408/71, the term ‘residence’ for the purposes of that regulation means habitual residence, that is, the place in which the persons concerned habitually reside and in which the habitual centre of their interests is to be found, and thus constitutes an autonomous concept particular to EU law (see the judgment in Swaddling , C‑90/97, EU:C:1999:96, paragraphs 28 and 29). It is apparent from the facts established by the national court set out at paragraphs 12 and 13 above that Mrs B.’s habitual residence and the habitual centre of her interests is in France.
28. It should be recalled that a Member State which lacks competence retains the possibility of granting family benefits if there are specific and particularly close connecting factors between the territory of that State and the situation at issue, on condition that the predictability and effectiveness of the application of the coordination rules of Regulation No 1408/71 are not disproportionately affected (see, to that effect, Hudzinski and Wawrzyniak , EU:C:2012:339, paragraphs 65 to 67).
34. ‘Residence’ is defined in Article 1(j) of Regulation No 883/2004 as the place where a person habitually resides. Article 11 of Implementing Regulation No 987/2009 refers to residence in terms of the centre of interests of the person concerned. That provision also codifies the list of factors developed by the Court’s case-law which may be taken into account when determining such a centre of interests, such as the duration and continuity of presence on the territory of the Member States concerned or the family status and family ties of the person concerned (see, to that effect, the judgment in Wencel , C‑589/10, EU:C:2013:303, paragraph 50).