-
Question
Must Regulation No 883/2004 and, in particular, Article 67, read in conjunction with Article 11(2) thereof, be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, in order to be eligible to receive family benefits in the competent Member State, it is necessary for a person to pursue an activity as an employed person in that Member State or to be in receipt of cash benefits from that Member State because or as a consequence of such activity?
-
Ruling
Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems and, in particular, Article 67, read in conjunction with Article 11(2) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, in order to be eligible to receive family benefits in the competent Member State, it is not necessary for a person either to pursue an activity as an employed person in that Member State or to be in receipt of cash benefits from that Member State because or as a consequence of such activity.
DOI: 10.5553/EELC/187791072019004001023
European Employment Law Cases |
|
| Rulings | ECJ 7 February 2019, case C-322/17 (Bogatu), Social insuranceEugen Bogatu – v – Minister for Social Protection, Irish case |
| Trefwoorden | Social insurance |
| DOI | 10.5553/EELC/187791072019004001023 |
|
Toon PDF Toon volledige grootte Samenvatting Statistiek Citeerwijze |
| Dit artikel is keer geraadpleegd. |
| Dit artikel is 0 keer gedownload. |
Aanbevolen citeerwijze bij dit artikel
, "ECJ 7 February 2019, case C-322/17 (Bogatu), Social insurance", European Employment Law Cases, 1, (2019):61-61
, "ECJ 7 February 2019, case C-322/17 (Bogatu), Social insurance", European Employment Law Cases, 1, (2019):61-61
|
|
Dit artikel wordt geciteerd in
Inhoud