Overview of recent cases before the Court of Justice of the European Union (January–August 2025)

Abstract

Between January and August 2025, only two cases related to social security have been handed down by the Court. The first case, C-7/24 Deutsche Rentenversicherung Nord and BG Verkehr, concerns the interpretation of Article 85(1) of Regulation 883/2004. This ‘conflicts-of-law’ provision is relevant when an institution of a Member State has paid a social security benefit to a person for an injury resulting from events occurring in another Member State and wishes to claim compensation from the third party liable for the injury. In order to determine what benefits could be subrogated, the Court ruled that the benefits need to be ‘sufficiently comparable’ in their subject matter and purpose. The second case is C-257/24 Städteregion Aachen, about the refusal to grant school assistance benefit to a disabled child of a frontier worker, due to residence abroad. The Court found that this case amounted to indirect discrimination, prohibited by Article 7(2) of Regulation 492/2011.

Compensation from third party liability in cross-border cases: Case C-7/24 Deutsche Rentenversicherung Nord and BG Verkehr ¹

This case deals with the possibility for an institution of one Member State to claim compensation from a third party liable for an injury that occurred in another Member State.

A German national who worked as an export driver for a German company was injured in a work accident leading to his death. The work accident occurred at one of the Marius Pedersen A/S (‘MP’) business premises in Denmark. MP acknowledged its civil liability in respect of the death of the worker and paid, via his insurer (‘GF’), compensation for loss to the widow, calculated on the basis of Danish law. In addition, the insurers of the German worker, DRV-N and BG-V, paid a widow's pension to his widow in accordance with German law. Under German law, there is a right of subrogation to the rights of the deceased worker's widow, against the liable third party. DRV-N and BG-V therefore claimed reimbursement of the widow's pension from MP and its insurer, GF. MP and GF refused the reimbursement on two grounds. First, they claimed that the entitlement to the widow's pension under German law does not correspond to the right to compensation for loss of a provider under Danish law. Second, they asserted that compensation for loss under Danish law had already been paid to the widow and no other compensation exists under Danish law. DRV-N and BG-V then brought a recoupment action against MP and GF before a Danish court. The Danish court decided to send a question for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice asking for an interpretation of Article 85(1) of Regulation 883/2004.

Article 85(1) of Regulation 883/2004 provides a conflicts rule whereby the right of action, either by subrogation or by direct action, of an institution which has paid a benefit to a person following an injury resulting from events occurring in another Member State is determined by the law of the Member State where that institution is established, and is to be recognised by other Member States. Essentially, this rule ensures that the person is compensated by the institution where he or she is insured, while also allowing that institution to then bring an action against the third party liable for the injury that occurred in the other Member State. The Court highlighted that Article 85(1) requires the national court hearing the dispute to apply the law of the Member State where the institution is based, in order to determine whether that institution had a subrogation right or not (para. 29). However, it also found that the rules on the conditions for bringing an action for damages and the rules on third party liability are determined in accordance with the law of the State where the injury occurred (paras. 32 and 33). Hence, the fact that subrogation rights might exist does not create additional rights for the recipient of the benefits against third parties (para. 34). For this case, this meant that while the German institutions, DRV-N and BG-V, had a subrogation right on the basis of German law, they could not claim subrogation for more than what the widow could have obtained herself under Danish law (paras. 36-37).

Still, the question remained as to whether the widow could, under Danish law, have obtained a widow's pension such as the one she received in Germany. While the widow had already received compensation for the loss of a provider under Danish law, other types of compensation could still potentially have been claimed. On this crucial point of correspondence between benefits, the Court found that the benefits in different Member States are likely to vary considerably. Therefore, adopting ‘overly strict requirements’ might deprive Article 85(1) of Regulation 883/2004 of its practical effect (para. 42). Instead, the Court considered that the right test must be whether the benefits are sufficiently comparable as regards their subject matter and purpose (para. 43). In this case, the Court found that ‘the Danish and German benefits are granted following the death of a provider and are both intended to compensate close surviving family members for, inter alia, loss of earnings linked to the loss of the deceased's income’ (para. 44). Hence, subject to verification by the national court and to the ceilings laid down by Danish law, the Court found that the benefits claimed based on German law were sufficiently comparable to those available under Danish law.

With an interpretation that allows comparison, instead of strict equivalence, the Court ensures that institutions are able to obtain compensation from third parties who are liable for the injury that has occurred in another Member State, for which the institutions have granted compensation. While it keeps intact the competence of the Member States to determine the question of liability and the types of compensation arising, it also maintains the conflicts rule laid down in Article 85(1) of Regulation 883/2004.

School assistance benefit for a disabled child of a frontier worker: Case C-257/24 Städteregion Aachen ²

This case concerns the refusal by the German authorities to grant an integration benefit in the form of school assistance benefits to a parent of a disabled child, on the basis that the child does not meet the residence requirement prescribed by national law.

The mother of the child is a German national who works as a doctor in Germany, while the father is an Irish national who worked in the Netherlands. The child has dual nationality, German and Irish, lives in Belgium and attends an inclusive school in Germany. Under German law, German nationals are not entitled to such integration benefits when they are habitually resident abroad. Some exceptions are provided by the law but the applicants did not fit any of those exceptions. Hence, while the refusal to grant the integration benefit was in accordance with national law, the referring court doubted whether the requirement of habitual residence in Germany was compatible with EU law.

The first question asked whether the benefit at hand fell within the material scope of Regulation 883/2004. In order for a benefit to be classified as a social security benefit within the meaning of Article 3(1) of Regulation 883/2004, two cumulative conditions must be fulfilled. First, the benefit must be granted, without any individual and discretionary assessment of personal needs, to recipients on the basis of a legally defined position. Second, the benefit must relate to one of the risks expressly listed in Article 3(1). Since eligibility for the benefit in question was dependent on the needs of the person, determined by an individual and discretionary examination of his or her situation, the Court concluded that it could not be classified as a social security benefit under Regulation 883/2004 (para. 29). The Court also confirmed that the benefit in question was not listed in Annex X of Regulation 883/2004 and therefore could not qualify as a special non-contributory benefit under Article 70 (paras. 31-32).

The second question concerned whether the requirement of habitual residence in Germany was compatible with Article 7(2) of Regulation 492/2011 enshrining the principle of equal treatment as regards the receipt of social advantages for EU workers. Although the situation at hand might have appeared as ‘purely internal’, since the mother is a German national claiming a benefit from Germany, she exercised her right of free movement under Article 45 TFEU by residing in Belgium while working in Germany. Hence, a frontier worker such as the mother of the child can rely on Regulation 492/2011, which gives expression to Article 45 TFEU, and its provision on equal treatment (Article 7(2)) in her own Member State (paras. 35–38). Furthermore, the members of the frontier worker's family can also rely on that equal treatment provision as indirect recipients (para. 38). Lastly, pursuant to settled case-law, ³ the concept of social advantages under Article 7(2) of Regulation 492/2011 comprises ‘all the advantages which, whether or not linked to a contract of employment, are generally granted to national workers by virtue of the mere fact of their residence in the national territory and the extension of which to workers who are nationals of other Member States seems likely to facilitate the mobility of such workers’ (para. 39). Since the Court had previously held that benefits granted to a dependent child of a migrant worker constitute social advantages, ⁴ it concluded that the school assistance benefits in this case also constituted social advantages under Article 7(2) of Regulation 492/2011 (para. 41). The Court found that the requirement of habitual residence in Germany constituted indirect discrimination (para. 44). During the procedure, the German government had presented two main objectives behind the requirement of habitual residence in Germany: first, the need to ensure a genuine link between the claimant and the Member State granting that assistance; and second, maintaining the financial balance of the national social security system (para. 47). The Court found that, while those objectives can be legitimate in principle, this requirement of habitual residence goes beyond what is necessary to attain those objectives. The Court emphasised that the element of genuine link is in fact fulfilled by the fact that the frontier worker contributes financially to the national social security system through tax and social security contributions (paras. 49-50). As a result, the requirement of habitual residence for the purpose of granting integration benefit in the form of a school assistance benefit was precluded by Article 7(2) of Regulation 492/2011.

This judgment builds strongly on previous judgments of the Court such as PF and others ⁵ or more recently Hocinx, ⁶ on discriminatory conditions for access to benefits for children of frontier workers. This judgment is a good reminder for Member States that EU law applies to their own nationals if those nationals have exercised their right of free movement by, for example, taking up residence in another Member State while maintaining employment in the Member State of origin. It is also a reminder that frontier workers should be treated equally to national (non-mobile) workers, and that these frontier workers are sufficiently linked with the State of employment through their tax and social security contributions.