Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/8

(Case C-443/11)

2011/C 355/12

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: F.P. Jeltes, M.A. Peeters, J.G.J. Arnold

Defendant: Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen (Uwv)

Questions referred

1.Is the supplementary scope of the judgment in Case 1/85 Miethe, which was delivered while Regulation No 1408/71 was in force, still valid under Regulation No 883/2004, that is to say, a right of choice for an atypical frontier worker in respect of the Member State in which he makes himself available to the employment recruitment services, and from which he receives unemployment benefit, on the ground that in the Member State of his choice his prospects of reintegration into working life are greatest? Or does Article 65 of Regulation No 883/2004, considered as a whole, provide sufficient guarantees that a wholly unemployed worker will receive a benefit under conditions which are most favourable for him in his search for work, and has the Miethe judgment lost its added value?

2.Does European Union law, in this case Article 45 TFEU or Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68, preclude the refusal by a Member State to award an unemployment benefit under its national legislation in the case of a migrant worker (frontier worker) who has become wholly unemployed, who was last employed in that Member State and who, given the existence of social and family ties, may be assumed to have the best prospects of reintegration into working life in that Member State, solely on the ground that he resides in another Member State?

3.Having regard to Article 87(8) of Regulation No 883/2004, Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principle of legal certainty, what would be the answer to the foregoing question if, before the date of the entry into force of Regulation No 883/2004, such a worker had been awarded an unemployment benefit under the legislation of the previous State of employment, where the maximum duration of the benefit and of the revival had not yet lapsed at the time of that entry into force (and where that benefit was terminated on the ground that the unemployed person had again found work)?

4.Would the answer to Question 2 be different if undertakings had been given to the unemployed frontier workers concerned that they would be able to apply for the revival of their entitlement to benefits if, after having found new work, they were once again to become unemployed, and the information supplied in that regard does not appear to have been correct or unambiguous as a result of lack of clarity in implementing practice?

(1) Case 1/85 Miethe [1986] ECR 1837.

(2) Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council 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 (OJ English Special Edition, 1971(II), p. 416).

(3) Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1).

(4) Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition, 1968(II), p. 475).