8.2.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/14

(Case C-646/13)

2014/C 39/22

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Casa Județeană de Pensii Brăila

Respondent: E.S.

Questions referred

1.Must Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 be interpreted as excluding the application of a bilateral convention on social security which was entered into prior to application of that regulation and does not appear in Annex II to that regulation, under circumstances in which the rules applicable under that bilateral convention prove to be more favourable for the insured person than would be the case under the rules based on that regulation?

2.When an assessment is made as to whether the bilateral convention is more favourable, does Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 require the view to be taken that it is necessary to remain within the legal interpretation of the bilateral convention or is it also necessary to include the specific detailed arrangements for application (regarding the quantum of the pension which can be granted by each State, the payment of which is determined by reference to the application/exclusion of application of the convention by the regulation)?

3.In the event of a negative answer to the first question (to the effect that application of the bilateral convention on social security is not excluded), is it possible to regard as more favourable, within the meaning of Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, legal rules on the basis of which a State signatory to the convention on social security recognises a shorter contributory period than that actually completed, and that State pays a pension of a greater amount than that to which entitlement would arise if the entire contributory period in the joint-signatory State were to be recognised?

Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems.