Case C-517/16: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Gdańsku — Poland) — Stefan Czerwiński v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Gdańsku (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security for migrant workers — Coordination of social security systems — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Material scope — Article 3 — Declaration made by Member States under Article 9 — Bridging pension — Classification — Statutory pre-retirement schemes — Exclusion of the rule of aggregation of periods under Article 66)
C2592018EN710120180530EN00087171
Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 30 May 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Gdańsku — Poland) — Stefan Czerwiński v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Gdańsku
(Case C-517/16) ( 1 )
‛(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security for migrant workers — Coordination of social security systems — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Material scope — Article 3 — Declaration made by Member States under Article 9 — Bridging pension — Classification — Statutory pre-retirement schemes — Exclusion of the rule of aggregation of periods under Article 66)’2018/C 259/08Language of the case: Polish
Referring court
Sąd Apelacyjny w Gdańsku
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Stefan Czerwiński
Defendant: Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Gdańsku
Operative part of the judgment
1.
The classification of a benefit under one of the branches of social security listed in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, made by the competent national authority in the declaration submitted by the Member State pursuant to Article 9(1) of that regulation, is not definitive. The classification of a social security benefit may be made by the national court concerned, autonomously and on the basis of the elements that constitute the social security benefit at issue, and by referring, if necessary, a question for a preliminary ruling to the Court.
2.
A benefit such as that at issue in the main proceedings must be regarded as an ‘old-age benefit’ within the meaning of Article 3(1)(d) of Regulation No 883/2004.
( 1 ) OJ C 22, 23.1.2017.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy