Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Case Law from the EFTA Court and Decisional Practice of the EFTA Surveillance Authority on the Right to Free Movement, Residence and Equal Treatment Under the Coordination Regime for Social Security Benefits

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The EEA Agreement in a Revised EU Framework for Welfare Services

Part of the book series: Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation ((SEELR,volume 13))

  • 268 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter is central for the analysis of the rights to free movement of non-economically active persons in the EEA in relation to the Coordination regime for social security schemes where also rights stemming from Union citizenship are relevant in the EU legal order. The analysis of the EFTA Court case law is undertaken both regarding rights against the host state and rights against the home state. The central starting point is Case E-5/06 Liechtenstein helpless allowance a key case on how the EEA Agreement affects boundaries of national solidarity systems. In Case E-4/07 Porkelsson the favouring treatment of moving individuals requiring special protection even of non-discriminatory rules is demonstrated. Cases E-3/12 and E-6/12 concern both the compatibility of national territorial boundaries of welfare solidarity enshrined in national provisions limiting the export of unemployment benefits and child benefits respectively. The last section concerns administrative practice in this area from the EFTA Surveillance Authority taking similar views as the EFTA Court.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Case C-431/11 United Kingdom v Council EU:C:2013:589, see above Sect. 6.3.3.

  2. 2.

    The Regulations are later replaced by Regulations 883/2004 and 987/2009, see Sect. 7.2.2.

  3. 3.

    See generally on the coordination of social security schemes in Van der Mei (2003) which also includes an analysis of the EEA dimension to the coordination.

  4. 4.

    And the successor, Regulation 883/2004.

  5. 5.

    Sakslien (2000), pp. 157–183.

  6. 6.

    See paragraphs 65–69 in particular.

  7. 7.

    See a reference to the relevant national law in paragraphs 20–29.

  8. 8.

    As well as Article 6 EEA.

  9. 9.

    The first case was Case 1/72 Frilli [1972] ECR 667.

  10. 10.

    Council Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 of 30 April 1992 amending 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.

  11. 11.

    Case C-20/96 Snares [1997] ECR I-6057.

  12. 12.

    Case C-297/96 Partridge [1998] ECR I-3467.

  13. 13.

    Case C-215/99 Jauch [2001] ECR I-1901.

  14. 14.

    Case C-43/99 Leclere [2001] ECR I-4265.

  15. 15.

    See as an example of confirming the listing in Case C-160/02 Skalka [2004] ECR I-5613, on the Austrian Compensatory supplement to pensions. See also Case C-299/05 on the Finnish childcare allowance, the Swedish ‘Disability allowance and care allowance for disabled children’ and the UK ‘Disability Living Allowance, Attendance Allowance and Carer’s Allowance.

  16. 16.

    See the Report for the Hearing paragraphs 65–80 and the decision of the Court paragraphs 45–55.

  17. 17.

    Case C-215/99 Jauch [2001] ECR I-1901.

  18. 18.

    Case C-20/96 Snares [1997] ECR I-6057.

  19. 19.

    Case C-297/96 Partridge [1998] ECR I-3467.

  20. 20.

    Reference is made to the L’Oréal case E-9/07 and 10/07 and to the Waterfall case E-2/06.

  21. 21.

    See the Report to the Hearing, paragraph 40.

  22. 22.

    See the decision paragraph 63 where the EFTA Court frames the question as if it is a matter of Liechtenstein having other obligations than the other Contracting Parties to the Agreement.

  23. 23.

    Students were introduced in the scope of Regulation 1408/71 by Regulation 307/1999 of 8 February 1999, later replaced by Directive 2004/38, see Chap. 4. See also Article 2 on persons covered in the present Regulation 883/2004, see Sect. 6.3.3.

  24. 24.

    On the implied solidarity with non-economic actors through the coordination regime of social security, see Verschueren (2007), pp. 307–346.

  25. 25.

    Article 2.

  26. 26.

    For a discussion of personal scope in the EU see Pennings (2005), pp. 245–246.

  27. 27.

    Case C-431/11 United Kingdom v Council EU:C:2013:589, see point 6.3.3 above.

  28. 28.

    Later case law which expands this solidarity dimension further makes references to case E-5/06, see as an example paragraphs 36 and 47 in case E-4/07 Porkelsson.

  29. 29.

    See also the later case E-11/16 Tryg Forsikring on institutions responsible for benefits against liable third parties.

  30. 30.

    This was undisputed in the case, see paragraph 67.

  31. 31.

    The national rules are described in paragraphs 7–14.

  32. 32.

    One of the questions in the case was whether this was a national rule or simply part of an industrial Agreement. For the purpose of this analysis it is not necessary to investigate this question further.

  33. 33.

    See paragraph 71.

  34. 34.

    See for a general analysis of the coordination regime which includes the EEA in Van der Mei (2003).

  35. 35.

    See for instance the reference to this by the EFTA Court in Case E-3/12 Jonsson paragraph 55, Sect. 9.4.

  36. 36.

    See paragraph 5.

  37. 37.

    Case C-19/92 Kraus [1993] ECR I-1663, paragraph 32 and Case C-55/94 Gebhard [1995] ECR I-4165, paragraph 37.

  38. 38.

    See Case C-18/95 Terhoeve [1999] ECR I-345.

  39. 39.

    Case C-190/98 Graf [2000] ECR I-493.

  40. 40.

    See Case C-190/98 Graf [2000] ECR I-493 on the limit of what constitutes an obstacle to free movement, paras 23- See Case C-18/95 Terhoeve [1999] ECR I-345.

    Case C-190/98 Graf [2000] ECR I-493.

    See Case C-190/98 Graf [2000] ECR I-493 on the limit of what constitutes an obstacle to free movement, paragraphs 23–25.

  41. 41.

    See paragraph 70 where Iceland draws attention to the possibility that the if the former mariner would receive payments in line with his projected entitlements from the pension funds, he should receive less from the public social security systems concerned.

  42. 42.

    Case C-212/05 Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed in Hartmann v Freistaat [2007] ECR I-06303, paragraph 86.

  43. 43.

    See in particular paragraphs 67–80 of the written intervention by the Authority 18 June 2007, made public after decision 19 March 2014.

  44. 44.

    Written intervention by the Authority 18 June 2007, paragraph 79.

  45. 45.

    Written intervention by the Authority 18 June 2007, paragraph 80.

  46. 46.

    And indeed several references are made to this case in the decision, see i.a. paragraph 47.

  47. 47.

    See more generally on this in Sect. 7.3.

  48. 48.

    Case C-224/98 D’Hoop [2002] ECR I-06191.

  49. 49.

    Case C-224/98 D’Hoop [2002] ECR I-06191, paragraph 30.

  50. 50.

    Case C-406/04 De Cuyper [2006] ECR I-06947.

  51. 51.

    See for a more thorough analysis of this case in Sect. 9.4 on unemployment benefits.

  52. 52.

    Regulation 1408/71 Article 10(1) conferred the limited access to export the benefit in Article 69(1), see more on this in the next section.

  53. 53.

    Case C-503/09 Lucy Stewart v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2011] ECR I-6497. The more recent cases on student rights against their home state are also illustrative, see Chap. 4.

  54. 54.

    Somek (2007), p. 793.

  55. 55.

    Written observations by the Authority 18 June 2007, paragraphs 79 and 80.

  56. 56.

    The projection of entitlements did not constitute acquired social security rights within the meaning of the Regulation, see Article 29 EEA and the decision paragraph 35 and the intervention by the Icelandic Government.

  57. 57.

    For this argument it is also referred to the structure of the pension funds in Iceland and the interplay with the basic social security system as discussed above.

  58. 58.

    Somek (2007), p. 793.

  59. 59.

    For a more complete account of the view of the Icelandic Government of how far the coordination regime required export of benefits, see the Report for the Hearing, paragraphs 63–76.

  60. 60.

    Dougan (2006), pp. 613–641.

  61. 61.

    In the literature, this has been suggested as an absolute limit on the homogeneity principle. Thus, in cases involving duties on private parties, the EFTA Court cannot rely on the homogeneity principle in the same way as in cases involving duties on states. The rule of law constitutes an obstacle to such interpretation, see Fenger (2006) , pp. 131–154.

  62. 62.

    See also the factual material relied upon by the CJEU in the case C-406/04 Gérald De Cuyper v Office national de l’emploi [2006] ECR I-6947.

  63. 63.

    Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed in case C-406/04 Gérald De Cuyper v Office national de l’emploi [2006] ECR I-6947, paragraph 59.

  64. 64.

    Examples include Cases C-406/04, Gérald De Cuyper v Office national de l’emploi [2006] ECR I-6947 and C-228/07 Jørn Petersen v Arbeitsmarktservice [2008] ECR I-6989.

  65. 65.

    Now replaced by Regulation 883/2004 Article 7.

  66. 66.

    The same result is now achieved in Regulation 883/2004, see Articles 3(1)h, 11(3)c and Chapter 6 in particular Article 63 on the waiving of residence rules in Article 7 only in the cases provided for by Articles 64 and 65.

  67. 67.

    Regulation 883/2004 Article 64.

  68. 68.

    Regulation 883/2004 Article 65.

  69. 69.

    It is not necessary to go more into detail regarding the coordination regime for the point made here, for a more detailed explanation, see Van der Mei (2003) .

  70. 70.

    This understanding is in line with the understanding expressed by the observations by the EFTA Surveillance Authority 16 August 2012, see paragraphs 23 and 24.

  71. 71.

    C-406/04 Gérald De Cuyper v Office national de l’emploi [2006] ECR I-6947.

  72. 72.

    Case C-228/07 Jørn Petersen v Arbeitsmarktservice [2008] ECR I-6989.

  73. 73.

    Confer Regulation 1408/71 Article 10, Articles 69 and 71 were not applicable in the cases.

  74. 74.

    See the comparison with Tas Hagen, Case C-192/05 [2006] ECR I-10451 by Cousins (2007), pp. 386–395.

  75. 75.

    Case C-406/04 Gérald De Cuyper v Office national de l’emploi [2006] ECR I-10451, paragraph 41.

  76. 76.

    The outcome of the case has been characterised as slightly surprising (compared to other cases on export of benefits and Union Citizenship like the Tas-Hagen case C-192/05) given that a core social security benefit which is subject for coordination and (albeit limited) export was unaffected by the concept of Union citizenship, see Cousins (2007), p. 393.

  77. 77.

    In the De Cuyper case many of the normal components of the ‘unemployment’ benefit payable had been removed because of the choice of the Belgian legislature to exempt unemployed above a certain age from the requirements of being available for work and actually look for work.

  78. 78.

    See C-406/04 Gérald De Cuyper v Office national de l’emploi [2006] ECR I-6947, paragraphs 38 and 39, C-135/99 Elsen [2000] ECR I-10409, paragraph 42, Case C-456/02 Trojani v Centre Public [2004] ECR I-7573, paragraph 45, Case C-85/96 Martinez Sala [1998] ECR I-2691, paragraph 48, Case C-138/02 Collins v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2004] ECR I-2703, Case C-413/01 Ninni-Orasch [2003] ECR I-13187, Case C-212/05 Hartmann v Freistaat [2007] ECR I-06303, see Chap. 7.

  79. 79.

    The opinion of the Advocate General Geelhoed in Case C-228/07 Jørn Petersen v Arbeitsmarktservice [2008] ECR I-6989, paragraph 77.

  80. 80.

    See Case C-228/07 Jørn Petersen v Arbeitsmarktservice [2008] ECR I-6989, paragraph 59.

  81. 81.

    Decided 20 March 2013.

  82. 82.

    National Insurance Act of 28 February 1997 No 19, sections 4-2 and 4-5.

  83. 83.

    In line with the requirements in former Regulation 1408/71 Article 71(1)(a)(i).

  84. 84.

    From an economic point of view an argument can be made to the effect that jobseekers should have comparable conditions (i.a. social benefits) in order to compete for jobs on equal terms.

  85. 85.

    Case E-3/12 Jonsson, paragraphs 72 and 82.

  86. 86.

    Case E-3/12, Jonsson, paragraphs 68–70, 75.

  87. 87.

    See for instance the reasoning in the Petersen case emphasising the right to move freely for all citizens.

  88. 88.

    Decided 11 September 2013.

  89. 89.

    See Sect. 7.3 above.

  90. 90.

    See Case C-140/12 Brey EU:C:2013:565, see also the alleged modifications to this general rule in the string of cases commented upon above Cases C-333/13, EU:C:2014:2358 Dano, C-67/14, EU:C:2015:5 Alimanovic and C-308/14 EU:C:2016:436 on the export of childcare benefits from the UK and Ireland.

  91. 91.

    Case C-503/09 Lucy Stewart v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2011] ECR I-6497.

  92. 92.

    Case C-503/09 Lucy Stewart v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2011] ECR I-6497, paragraphs 77–104.

  93. 93.

    Case C-228/07 Jørn Petersen v Arbeitsmarktservice [2008] ECR I-6989, The Petersen case is dealt with more generally in Sect. 9.4.

  94. 94.

    Now revised by Regulation 883/2004, see Sect. 6.3.3.

  95. 95.

    The opinion of the Advocate General Cruz Villalón is built on this understanding of the UK system, see Opinion of Advocate General Cruz Villalón in Case C-503/09 Lucy Stewart v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2011] ECR I-6497, especially paragraphs 8–18 on national law, see also paragraph 64.

  96. 96.

    Opinion of the Advocate General in Case C-503/09 Lucy Stewart v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2011] ECR I-6497, paragraphs 52 and 55.

  97. 97.

    Opinion of the Advocate General Cruz Villalón in Case C-503/09 Lucy Stewart v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2011] ECR I-6497, paragraphs 36 and 51.

  98. 98.

    Opinion of the Advocate General Cruz Villalón in Case C-503/09 Lucy Stewart v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2011] ECR I-6497, paragraph 53.

  99. 99.

    Replaced by Regulation 883/2004.

  100. 100.

    Case C-503/09 Lucy Stewart v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2011] ECR I-6497, paragraph 61.

  101. 101.

    Case C-503/09 Lucy Stewart v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2011] ECR I-6497, paragraph 80.

  102. 102.

    Case C-224/98 D’Hoop [2002] ECR I-06191.

  103. 103.

    Case C-224/02 Pusa [2004] ECR I-5763.

  104. 104.

    Case C-503/09 Lucy Stewart v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2011] ECR I-6497 paragraphs 87–110.

  105. 105.

    See Regulation 883/2004 Article 1(i)(3).

  106. 106.

    Case C-363/08 Slanina, ECR [2009] I-11111.

  107. 107.

    Reasoned opinion 29 June 2011, Case No 65876.

  108. 108.

    Reasoned opinion 29 June 2011, Case No 65876, pp. 5 and 8.

  109. 109.

    Reasoned opinion 29 June 2011, Case No 65875.

  110. 110.

    Reasoned opinion 29 June 2011, Case No 65875, pp. 7 and 8.

  111. 111.

    Reasoned opinion 29 June 2011, Case No 65875, p. 9.

  112. 112.

    Decisions by the EFTA Surveillance Authority 6 February 2013 in Case No 65876 and 18 January 2012 in Case No 65875.

References

  • Cousins M (2007) Citizenship, residence and social security. Eur Law Rev 32(3):386–395

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougan M (2006) The constitutional dimension to the case law on Union citizenship. Eur Law Rev 31(5):613–641

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenger N (2006) Limits to a dynamic homogeneity between EC law and EEA law. In: Fenger N, Sørensen H, Vesterdorf (eds) Festskrift Claus Gulman. Karnov Group, Copenhagen, pp 131–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennings F (2005) Inclusion and exclusion of persons and benefits in the new co-ordination regulation. In: Spaventa E, Dougan M (eds) Social welfare and EU law. Hart, Oxford, pp 241–260

    Google Scholar 

  • Sakslien M (2000) The concept of residence and social security: reflections on Finnish, Swedish and community legislation. Eur J Migr Law 2:157–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Somek A (2007) Solidarity decomposed. Eur Law Rev 32:787–818

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Mei AP (2003) Free movement of persons within the European Community cross-border access to public benefits. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Verschueren H (2007) European (internal) migration law as an instrument for defining the boundaries of national solidarity systems. Eur J Migr Law 9:307–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Independent Appeals Board for Competition Cases in Norway, EEA Competition Authority, Simonsen Vogt Wiig Lawfirm, Oslo, Norway

    Karin Fløistad

Authors
  1. Karin Fløistad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Fløistad, K. (2018). Case Law from the EFTA Court and Decisional Practice of the EFTA Surveillance Authority on the Right to Free Movement, Residence and Equal Treatment Under the Coordination Regime for Social Security Benefits. In: The EEA Agreement in a Revised EU Framework for Welfare Services. Studies in European Economic Law and Regulation, vol 13. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95043-3_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95043-3_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-95042-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-95043-3

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation