- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case C-801/18: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 5 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil supérieur de la Sécurité sociale — Luxembourg) — EU v Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Freedom of movement for workers — Equal treatment — Article 45 TFEU — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Article 4 — Social security convention concluded between the Member State of employment and a non-member country — Family allowances — Application to a frontier worker who is neither a national nor a resident of one of the Contracting States to the convention)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018CB0801
62018CB0801
With us you find everything. Try it now!
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C 19/4
(Case C-801/18) (<span class="super note-tag">1</span>)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Freedom of movement for workers - Equal treatment - Article 45 TFEU - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Article 4 - Social security convention concluded between the Member State of employment and a non-member country - Family allowances - Application to a frontier worker who is neither a national nor a resident of one of the Contracting States to the convention)
(2020/C 19/05)
Language of the case: French
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: EU
Defendant: Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants
Operative part of the order
Article 45 TFEU, read in conjunction with Article 4 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, must be interpreted as precluding the refusal by the competent authorities of one Member State to pay to a national of a second Member State, who works in the first Member State without living there, family allowances for his child living in a non-member country with her mother when, under identical conditions for the grant of those benefits, those competent authorities recognise the entitlement of their own nationals and residents to family benefits pursuant to a bilateral international convention concluded between the first Member State and that non-member country, unless those authorities can put forward an objective justification for refusing to do so.
(<span class="note">1</span>) OJ C 82, 4.3.2019.
* * *