European Ruling on Pensions: A Second Warning for the Netherlands

  • Hans van MeertenEmail author


The Hogan Judgment of the ECJ found that each EU state is liable for a minimum level of pension benefit commitments. The claimants in this case found that Ireland had not properly transposed Article 8 of Directive 2008/94 into national law. This Directive protects employees when their employer becomes insolvent. The Irish Court asked the ECJ whether a causal link between loss of pension benefits and insolvency of the employer was necessary for the Directive to be applicable and if the Irish State was liable if transposing Article 8 was done incorrectly. The ECJ concluded that causality between the employer’s insolvency and the loss of pension rights of the employee was not necessary. This case was preceded by several others in which the interpretation of the Directive and the liability of the state were under discussion. The Dutch government has transposed the Directive into several national Acts. Although many consider this transposition to be sufficient, the author mentions several reasons why a situation similar to the Irish case can also happen in this country. In his conclusion, the author emphasizes the danger of the statement that the Netherlands has provided sufficient safeguards to prevent the Irish situation. The Hogan case can have severe implications for the Netherlands, warns the author, especially when reducing and discounting pension accruals and benefits.


Pension Fund Pension Scheme Pension Benefit State Pension State Liability 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bruyninckx TB (2007) De voorwaarde van causaliteit als obstakel voor gemeenschapsaansprakelijkheid in staatssteunzaken. NTER 11:232–237Google Scholar
  2. Kocken T (2010) Aandacht voor uitkeringsfase, IPN October/November:24–25Google Scholar
  3. Lutjens E (2013) Bescherming pensioenaanspraken bij insolventie. Tijdschrift voor Pensioenvraagstukken 3:44–48Google Scholar
  4. Pikaart M (2013) Lusten en lasten van de generaties in het pensioenstelsel. De Actuaris 20(4):40–41 (the online version was consulted for this article)Google Scholar
  5. Ritoe JA (2007) Bescherming tegen betalingsonmacht van werkgever kan beter. PensioenMagazine No. 6Google Scholar
  6. Van Meerten H (2009) Iets over richtlijnconforme interpretatie. Tijdschrift voor Financieel Recht 10:377–379Google Scholar
  7. Van Meerten H (2012) Europa en ons pensioen: enkele overpeinzingen. PensioenMagazine No.1Google Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Clifford Chance LLPThe HagueThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations