![]() |
||
Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions |
swarb.co.uk - law indexThese cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Benefits - From: 1970 To: 1979This page lists 21 cases, and was prepared on 03 April 2018. Gabrielle Defrenne v Belgian State C-80/70; R-80/70; [1971] EUECJ R-80/70; [1974] 1 CMLR 494; [1971] ECR 445 25 May 1971 ECJ European, Discrimination, Benefits ECJ The concept of pay as defined in article 119 of the EEC Treaty does not include social security schemes or benefits directly governed by legislation without any element of agreement within the undertaking or the occupational branch concerned, which are obligatorily applicable to general categories of workers or which, within the framework of such a general system established by legislation, relate to certain categories of workers in particular. This applies especially to retirement pension schemes which give workers the benefit of a legal system, the financing of which, workers, employers and possibly the public authorities contribute in a measure determined less by the employment relationship between the employer and the worker than by considerations of social policy. The part due from the employer in the financing of such schemes does not constitute a direct or indirect payment to the worker; the latter receives the benefits legally prescribed solely by reason of the fact that he fulfils the legal conditions required for their being granted. Situations involving discrimination resulting from the application of such a scheme are not subject to the requirements of article 119. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Hohn v Caisse Regionale D'Assurance Vieillesse Des Travailleurs Salaries De Strasbourg R-28/71; [1971] EUECJ R-28/71 10 Nov 1971 ECJ European, Benefits 1. Where the legislation of a member state provides for old-age benefits of different kinds, depending on the length of time for which the worker concerned has been affiliated, insurance periods completed successively or alternatively in two or more member states must be aggregated wherever the worker has not completed the number of periods necessary under the legislation of the first state to entitle him to benefit of the more advantageous kind. 2. Where aggregation is necessary, for the purpose of calculating the fraction of the benefit to be borne by the relevant institution, account must be taken of the periods in fact completed by the worker concerned, and not merely those representing the total required in the state in question for entitlement to full benefit. [ Bailii ] Heinrich Gross v Caisse Regionale D'Assurance Vieillesse Des Travailleurs Salaries De Strasbourg R-26/71; [1971] EUECJ R-26/71 10 Nov 1971 ECJ Benefits ECJ Social Security For Migrant Workers - 1. Where the legislation of a member state provides for old-age benefits of different kinds, depending on the length of time for which the worker concerned has been affiliated, insurance periods completed successively or alternately in two or more member states must be aggregated wherever the worker has not completed the number of periods necessary under the legislation of the first state to entitle him to benefit of the more advantageous kind. 2. Where aggregation is necessary, for the purpose of calculating the fraction of the benefit to be borne by the relevant institution account must be taken of the periods in fact completed by the worker concerned, and not merely those representing the total required in the state in question for entitlement to full benefit. [ Bailii ] Keller v Caisse Regionale DAssurance Vieillesse Des Travailleurs Salaries De Strasbourg R-27/71; [1971] EUECJ R-27/71 10 Nov 1971 ECJ Benefits Old-age pension. [ Bailii ] Regina v National Insurance Commissioner, Ex parte Hudson [1972] AC 944 1972 HL Lord Diplock, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, Lord Reid Constitutional, Benefits The House considered whether it would have power to make a ruling with prospective effect only. Lord Diplock said the matter deserved further consideration; Lord Simon said that the possibility of prospective overruling should be seriously considered, but that he would prefer legislation, saying that 'informed professional opinion' was probably to the effect that the House had no power to overrule decisions with prospective effect only. Viscount Dilhorne discussed the freedom if any to overturn a recent case: "[I]f the view be that the decision is clearly wrong, it is, I think, easier to decide that a recent case should not be followed than if it is one that has stood for a long time, for if it is in the latter category many may have acted in reliance on it." Lord Reid said that the power given to the House by the Practice Statement was to be applied only in a small number of cases in which previous decisions of the House were "thought to be impeding the proper development of the law or to have led to results which were unjust or contrary to public policy." Lord Diplock said: "Section 5 (1946 Act), which contains the general description of and conditions of entitlement to each of the three benefits, avoids the use of the compound phrase 'personal injury by accident' which had appeared in successive Workmen's Compensation Acts since 1897. It is reasonable to suppose that the change in phraseology was deliberate - though there is an isolated lapse into the expression 'personal injury by accident' in section 48(2) of the statute." Workmen's Compensation Act 1946 5 1 Cites 1 Citers (Un-named) [1972] UKSSCSC RA_1_1972 26 Jun 1972 SSCS Benefits [ Bailii ] Land Niedersachsen v Landesversicherungsanstalt R-15/72; [1972] EUECJ R-15/72 16 Nov 1972 ECJ Benefits Preliminary Rulings - Tuberculosis benefits. [ Bailii ] (Un-named) [1974] UKSSCSC RI_14_1974 8 Oct 1974 SSCS Benefits [ Bailii ] Kingdom Of Belgium, Henri Costers And Marie Vounckx v Berufsgenossenschaft Der Feinmechanik Und Elektrotechnik. R-40/74; [1974] EUECJ R-40/74 3 Dec 1974 ECJ Benefits Social Security For Migrant Workers [ Bailii ] Muller v Austria 5849/72; (1975) 3 DR 25 1975 ECHR Human Rights, Benefits Article 1 does not guarantee a right to a pension of any particular amount, but that the right safeguarded by Article 1 consists, at most, "in being entitled as a beneficiary of the social insurance scheme to any payments made by the fund." A claim to contributory benefits was a "possession" by analogy with the proprietary right of a contributor to a private pension fund. 1 Citers Regina v Preston Supplementary Benefits Appeal Tribunal, Ex parte Moore [1975] 1 WLR 624 1975 CA Lord Denning MR Benefits, Judicial Review Lord Denning MR observed that the courts should leave the tribunals to interpret the Supplementary Benefits Act in a broad reasonable way, according to the spirit and not the letter. To uphold the purposes of judicial review the "record is generously interpreted". (Un-named) [1975] UKSSCSC RI_12_1975 12 Aug 1975 SSCS Benefits [ Bailii ] Teresa Et Silvana Petroni v Office National Des Pensions Pour Travailleurs Salaries (Onpts), Bruxelles R-24/75; [1975] EUECJ R-24/75 21 Oct 1975 ECJ European, Benefits Social Security For Migrant Workers [ Bailii ] Brack v Insurance Officer C-17/76 29 Sep 1976 ECJ European, Benefits, Employment Europa The provision in paragraph 1 of point I (United Kingdom) of annex V to Regulation no 1408/71, far from restricting the definition of the term 'worker' as it emerges from clarify the scope of subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph vis-a-vis British legislation. A person who:- was compulsorily insured against the contingency of ' sickness ' successively as an employed person and as a self-employed person under a social security scheme for the whole working population; - was a self-employed person when this contingency occurred; - at the said time and under the provisions of the said scheme, nevertheless could have claimed sickness benefits in cash at the full rate only if there were taken into account both the contributions paid by him or on his behalf when he was an employed person and those which he made as a self-employed person; constitutes, as regards british legislation, a 'worker' within the meaning of article 1(a)(ii) of regulation no 1408/71 for the purposes of the application of the first sentence of article 22(1)(ii) of that regulation.
|
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG. |