GENERAL NOTICE

In January 2025, this online platform will be integrated into Boomportaal (www.boomportaal.nl), after which this platform will be discontinued. From that moment on, this URL will automatically redirect to Boomportaal.

Search articles of European Employment Law Cases
DOI: 10.5553/EELC/187791072021006003024

European Employment Law CasesAccess_open
Rulings

ECJ 30 September 2021, case C-285/20 (Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen (Uwv)), Social Insurance

K – v – Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen (Uwv), Dutch Case
Keywords Social Insurance
DOI 10.5553/EELC/187791072021006003024
Show PDF Show fullscreen
Abstract Statistics Citation
This article has been viewed times.
This article been downloaded 0 times.
Suggested citation
, "ECJ 30 September 2021, case C-285/20 (Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen (Uwv)), Social Insurance", European Employment Law Cases, 3, (2021):188-188
Download RIS Download BibTex

    Article 65 (2 and 5) must be interpreted as applying to applicants who received sickness benefits in another member state if the social security legislation of the competent member state equates receiving sickness benefits to the pursuit of an activity.

Dit artikel wordt geciteerd in

    • Summary

      Article 65 (2 and 5) must be interpreted as applying to applicants who received sickness benefits in another member state if the social security legislation of the competent member state equates receiving sickness benefits to the pursuit of an activity.

    • Questions

      1. Must Article 65(2) and (5) of Regulation No 883/2004 be interpreted as applying to a situation in which, before being wholly unemployed, the person concerned resided in a Member State other than the competent Member State and was not actually employed, but was on sick leave and received, on that basis, sickness benefits paid by the competent Member State?

      2. Must Article 65(2) and (5) of Regulation No 883/2004 be interpreted as meaning that the reasons, in particular of a family nature, for which the person concerned has transferred his or her residence to a Member State other than the competent Member State are relevant for the purposes of the application of that provision?

    • Ruling

      1. Article 65(2) and (5) 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, as amended by Regulation (EU) No 465/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012, must be interpreted as applying to a situation in which, before being wholly unemployed, the person concerned resided in a Member State other than the competent Member State and was not actually employed but was on sick leave and received, on that basis, sickness benefits paid by the competent Member State, provided, however, that, in accordance with the national law of the competent Member State, entitlement to such benefits is treated in the same way as the pursuit of an activity as an employed person.

      2. Article 65(2) and (5) of Regulation No 883/2004, as amended by Regulation No 465/2012, must be interpreted as meaning that the reasons, in particular of a family nature, for which the person concerned has transferred his or her residence to a Member State other than the competent Member State do not have to be taken into account for the purposes of applying that provision.


Print this article
Contents