Avis juridique important
Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 November 1990. - Beate Reibold v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Bundessozialgericht - Germany. - Social security for migrant workers - Regulation (EEC) Nº 1408/71, Article 71 (1) (b) (ii) - Concept of residence. - Case C-216/89.
European Court reports 1990 Page I-04163
Pub.RJ Page Pub somm
Summary
Parties
Operative part
++++
Social security for migrant workers - Unemployment - Worker other than a frontier worker, who is wholly unemployed and who, during his last employment, was residing in a Member State other than the State of employment - Residence in a Member State other than the State of employment - Criteria for assessment
( Council Regulation No 1408/71, Art . 71(1)(b)(ii ) )
SummaryArticle 71(1)(b)(ii ) of Regulation No 1408/71 is intended to guarantee unemployment benefits, under the most favourable conditions for seeking new employment, to a worker, other than a frontier worker, who is wholly unemployed and who makes himself available for work to the employment services in the territory of the Member State in which he resides, or who returns to that territory, although he was subject, by reason of his last employment, to the legislation of another Member State ( see judgment in Case 236/87 Bergemann v Bundesanstalt fuer Arbeit [1988] ECR 5125 ). For the purposes of determining whether a Member State is the State of residence of a worker in spite of the fact that the latter is employed in another Member State, it is necessary to take into account the length and continuity of the residence before the person concerned moved to another Member State, the length ( considered in the light of the facts of the particular case ) and purpose of his absence, the nature of the work found in the other Member State and the intention of the person concerned as it appears from all the circumstances ( see judgment in Case 76/76 Di Paolo v Office national de l' emploi [1977] ECR 315 ).
In the case where a worker accepts employment in another Member State for a period of two academic years, the fact that he obtains that employment under a university exchange scheme, that such a scheme normally limits the length of such employment at the outset and the work of the person concerned is interrupted every three months by long holiday periods which he spends in accommodation he retained in his State of origin are circumstances which may be taken into account by national courts for the purpose of deciding whether a worker comes within the abovementioned provision .
PartiesIn Case C-216/89,
REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Bundessozialgericht ( Federal Social Court ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Beate Reibold
and
Bundesanstalt fuer Arbeit ( Federal Employment Office )
on the interpretation of Article 71(1)(b)(ii ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community ( Official Journal, English Special Edition 1971 ( II ), p . 416 ), as amended and updated by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 ( Official Journal 1983 L 230, p . 6 ),
THE COURT ( Third Chamber ),
composed of : J . C . Moitinho de Almeida, President of Chamber, F . Grévisse and M . Zuleeg, Judges,
( The grounds of the judgment are not reproduced .)
in answer to the question referred to it by the Bundessozialgericht, by order of 27 April 1989, hereby rules :
Operative partFor the purposes of the application of Article 71(1)(b)(ii ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, account must be taken of the duration and continuity of the residence of the person concerned before he moved, the length and purpose of his absence, the nature of the work found in the other Member State and the intention of the person concerned as may be ascertained from all the circumstances; the circumstances of fact referred to by the national court are among those which may be taken into account for the purpose of applying those criteria .
Top