I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
(2008/C 79/27)
Language of the case: French
Applicant: Ketty Leyman
Defendant: Institut national d'assurance maladie-invalidité (I.N.A.M.I.)
1.Are Article 40(3)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and Article 93 of the Consolidated Laws of 14 July 1994 on medical care and sickness insurance benefit contrary to Article 18 of the EC Treaty in that, where a worker lives and works in a type A country (in this case, Belgium) and moves to a type B country (in this case, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), they do not permit, during the first year of incapacity for work, the grant of an allowance that takes into account the length of time worked and the period of contribution in the type A country (Belgium)?
2.Are Article 40(3)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and Article 93 of the Consolidated Laws of 14 July 1994 on medical care and sickness insurance benefit contrary to Article 18 of the EC Treaty in that, where a worker lives and works in a type A country (in this case, Belgium) and moves to a type B country (in this case, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), they give rise to discrimination to the detriment of a worker exercising her right of free movement in not permitting the grant to her, during the first year of incapacity for work, of an allowance that takes into account the length of time worked and the period of contribution in the type A country (Belgium)?
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2), as amended.