- 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-32/18: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 18 September 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse v Michael Moser (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social security — Migrant workers — Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 — Article 60 — Family benefits — Right to payment of the difference between the parental allowance paid in the Member State having primary competence and the childcare allowance provided by the Member State having secondary competence)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62018CA0032
62018CA0032
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
25.11.2019
Official Journal of the European Union
C 399/7
(Case C-32/18) (*)
(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social security - Migrant workers - Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 - Article 60 - Family benefits - Right to payment of the difference between the parental allowance paid in the Member State having primary competence and the childcare allowance provided by the Member State having secondary competence)
(2019/C 399/07)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse
Defendant: Michael Moser
Operative part of the judgment
1.The second sentence of Article 60(1) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation laid down in that provision to take into account, for the purposes of determining the scope of a person’s entitlement to family benefits, ‘the whole family … as if all the persons involved were subject to the legislation of the Member State concerned’ applies both in the case where benefits are provided in accordance with the legislation designated as having priority under Article 68(1)(b)(i) 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, and in the case where benefits are payable in accordance with one or more other laws.
2.Article 68 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that the amount of the differential supplement to be granted to a worker under the legislation of a Member State having secondary competence in accordance with that article must be calculated by reference to the income actually earned by that worker in his Member State of employment.
(*)
Language of the case: German
ECLI:EU:C:2019:140