Provisional text

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL

EMILIOU

delivered on 23 April 2026 (1)

Joined Cases C‑142/25 and C‑143/25 [Pepach] (i)

LF (C‑142/25),

CV (C‑143/25)

v

Pensionsversicherungsanstalt

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court, Austria))

( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Social security for migrant workers – Coordination of social security systems – Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 – Article 44(2) – Scope – Examination of entitlement to an old-age pension – Taking into account of child-raising periods completed in another Member State – Conditions – Article 21 TFEU – Free movement of citizens – Principle of equal treatment of facts )

I.      Introduction

1.        The present joined cases concern, once again, (2) the interpretation of Article 21 TFEU and Article 44(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems. (3) Article 44(2) requires, for the purpose of granting an old-age pension to a person, that the authorities of the Member State where such a person has worked (as an employed or self-employed person) (Member State A) prior to devoting his or her time to raising his or her children in another Member State (Member State B) apply, in certain conditions, its legislation to such child-raising periods and take them into account as though they have been completed on its territory.

2.        The references for a preliminary ruling were made by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court, Austria) in the context of disputes between LF (in Case C‑142/25) and CV (in Case C‑143/25) (together, ‘the appellants’) and the Pensionsversicherungsanstalt (‘the PVA’), the institution responsible for the statutory old-age insurance scheme in Austria. They concern the refusal by the latter to take into account, for the purpose of calculating the appellants’ old-age pensions, the periods of time that they dedicated to raising their children in Belgium and Italy, respectively.

3.        The issues raised are twofold. First, in Case C‑142/25, the referring court enquires about the interpretation of one of the conditions listed in Article 44(2) of Regulation No 987/2009, which is that child-raising periods completed abroad must only be taken into account by Member State A (here, Austria) for the purpose of granting an old-age pension if ‘no child-raising period is taken into account’ in Member State B (here, Belgium). That court wonders whether it follows from that condition that Member State B must not have adopted legislation enabling the taking into account of child-raising periods in general or whether it is sufficient that the periods in dispute were not taken into account pursuant to the legislation of Member State B in the given individual situation.

4.        Second, in both Cases C‑142/25 and C‑143/25, the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) seeks clarification concerning the ‘sufficiently close link’ or ‘sufficient link’ test which the Court has developed in its case-law on the basis of Article 21 TFEU (4) and which applies in situations where the conditions listed in Article 44(2) of Regulation No 987/2009 are not fulfilled, with a view to promote the taking into account of child-raising periods for the purpose of calculating pension benefits. (5) Pursuant to that test, Member State A (Austria) must apply its legislation to the child-raising periods completed in Member State B (Belgium and Italy, respectively) and consider such periods as they have been completed on its own territory, so long as they are ‘sufficiently closely linked’ or ‘sufficiently linked’ (6) to ‘periods of insurance’ completed by the person concerned in Member State A. Does such a link only exist where that person has worked exclusively in Member State A, both before and after raising his or her children in Member State B?

II.    Legal framework

A.      European Union law

1.      Regulation No 883/2004

5.        Title II of Regulation No 883/2004, entitled ‘Determination of the legislation applicable’, includes, inter alia, Article 11, which provides:

‘1.      Persons to whom this Regulation applies shall be subject to the legislation of a single Member State only. Such legislation shall be determined in accordance with this Title.

…

3.      Subject to Articles 12 to 16:

(a)      a person pursuing an activity as an employed or self-employed person in a Member State shall be subject to the legislation of that Member State;

…

(e)      any other person to whom subparagraphs (a) to (d) do not apply shall be subject to the legislation of the Member State of residence, without prejudice to other provisions of this Regulation guaranteeing him/her benefits under the legislation of one or more other Member States.

…’

2.      Regulation No 987/2009

6.        Regulation No 987/2009 lays down the procedure for implementing Regulation No 883/2004, pursuant to Article 89 of the latter regulation.

7.        Pursuant to recital 14 of Regulation No 987/2009:

‘Certain specific rules and procedures are required in order to define the legislation applicable for taking account of periods during which an insured person has devoted time to bringing up children in the various Member States.’

8.        Article 44 of that regulation states:

‘1.      For the purposes of this Article, “child-raising period” refers to any period which is credited under the pension legislation of a Member State or which provides a supplement to a pension explicitly for the reason that a person has raised a child, irrespective of the method used to calculate those periods and whether they accrue during the time of child-raising or are acknowledged retroactively.

2.      Where, under the legislation of the Member State which is competent under Title II of [Regulation No 883/2004], no child-raising period is taken into account, the institution of the Member State whose legislation, according to Title II of [Regulation No 883/2004], was applicable to the person concerned on the grounds that he or she was pursuing an activity as an employed or self-employed person at the date when, under that legislation, the child-raising period started to be taken into account for the child concerned, shall remain responsible for taking into account that period as a child-raising period under its own legislation, as if such child-raising took place in its own territory.

…’

B.      National law

9.        Paragraph 16(3a) of the Allgemeines Pensionsgesetz (General Law on Pensions; ‘the APG’) (BGBl. I, 142/2004) provides, in particular, that substitute qualifying periods spent raising children pursuant to Paragraph 227a of the Allgemeines Sozialversicherungsgesetz (General Law on Social Security; ‘the ASVG’) (BGBl. 189/1955) and to Paragraph 116a of the Gewerbliches Sozialversicherungsgesetz (Law on social insurance for persons engaged in trade and commerce; ‘the GSVG’) (BGBl. 560/1978) shall also be deemed to be insurance months for the purpose of fulfilling the minimum insurance period pursuant to Paragraph 4(1) of that legislation.

10.      Paragraph 227a of the ASVG states:

‘(1)      In addition, where an insured person has actually been the person primarily responsible for rearing her (his) child (subparagraph 2), such child-rearing in the country, up to a maximum of 48 calendar months from the birth of the child, shall constitute a substitute qualifying period after 31 December 1955 and before 1 January 2005 in the class of pension insurance within which the last preceding contribution period falls or, where no such period exists, within which the next following contribution period falls. In the event of a multiple birth, the 48-calendar-month period is extended to 60 calendar months.

…’

III. Facts, national proceedings and the questions referred

A.      Case C‑142/25

11.      LF is an Austrian national, born in 1963. Between 1 November 1980 and 30 April 1984, she accumulated 30 months of contributions to compulsory insurance in Austria, by reason of the pursuit of an employed activity (as an apprentice and employee), followed by 5 months of substitute qualifying periods, between 1 May 1984 and 30 September 1984, in that same Member State.

12.      On 23 July 1984, LF gave birth to her first child in Austria. Until 30 April 1985, she remained in that Member State and dedicated herself to bringing up her child.

13.      In May 1985, LF moved with her child to Belgium, where she gave birth to her second child on 15 March 1986. Until 1993, she resided together with her children in Belgium. During that period, she pursued no professional activity and dedicated herself to bringing up her children. She did not complete any ‘period of insurance’ which may be taken into account for the purpose of granting an old-age pension.

14.      Between 1993 and 2013, LF took up employment in Germany (as a frontier worker). She accumulated a total of 240 months of contributions to compulsory insurance in Germany, by reason of her employment. She continued to reside in Belgium during that period.

15.      In April 2013, LF moved back to Austria and began pursuing a gainful activity there. By 1 May 2023, she had accumulated another 120 months of contributions to compulsory insurance in Austria.

16.      LF applied to the PVA to determine the ‘periods of insurance’ which she had accumulated under Paragraph 247(1) of the ASVG, for the purpose of her old-age pension.

17.      By decision of 15 May 2023, the PVA considered that LF had accumulated a total of 162 months of insurance under Austrian legislation. However, only the months from October 1984 to April 1985 were taken into account as child-raising periods and treated as equivalent to qualifying periods of insurance.

18.      LF challenged that decision before the Austrian courts, on the ground that the periods from May 1985 to March 1990 should also be taken into account as relevant child-raising periods (‘the periods in dispute in Case C‑142/25’).

19.      In its defence, the PVA argued that those child-raising periods cannot be taken into account under Article 44(2) of Regulation No 987/2009, since they took place in a Member State (Belgium) whose legislation provides, in principle, for child-raising periods to be taken into account. Moreover, it submitted that it is not possible to take the periods in dispute into account under Article 21 TFEU either. Indeed, given LF’s years of employment in Germany, a ‘sufficiently close link’ cannot be established between those periods and the ‘periods of insurance’ completed by LF in Austria.

20.      The court of first instance upheld the action. It found that the conditions set out in Article 44(2) of Regulation No 987/2009 were satisfied because Belgium had not taken the periods in dispute into account in LF’s case. It further held that the PVA’s refusal to take those periods into account was contrary to Article 21 TFEU since, had LF’s place of residence not been transferred to Belgium and had she remained in Austria, all the child-raising periods completed by her would have been taken into account in accordance with the relevant Austrian legislation.

21.      The PVA appealed that decision. The court of second instance upheld the appeal. It held, first, that the periods during which LF dedicated herself to raising her first child in Belgium could not be taken into account pursuant to Austrian law because Belgian law already enabled the taking into account of child-raising periods in principle. Second, the periods which LF spent raising her second child could not be taken into account either, since the child in question was not born in Austria. Finally, it found that LF could not rely on Article 21 TFEU, because she had not been employed in Austria exclusively.

22.      LF brought an appeal on a point of law before the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court), which is the referring court.

23.      That court observes that, under Article 44(2) of Regulation No 987/2009, Austria may take into account the child-raising periods completed by LF in Belgium in respect of her first child only if those periods are not taken into account by Belgium. That condition may be interpreted in two ways: either such periods must not be recognised at all under Belgian law (in which case LF would not satisfy the condition, since Belgian law does in principle allow them to be taken into account), or it suffices that, in LF’s specific situation, the periods were not actually taken into account (in which case she could be entitled to have those periods recognised under Austrian law).

24.      Furthermore, it recalls that, in the judgments in Pensionsversicherungsanstalt and in Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund, the Court of Justice stated that, where a person has worked and paid contributions, or otherwise completed ‘periods of insurance’ exclusively in the Member State responsible for paying his or her old-age pension, both before and after transferring his or her residence to and raising his or her children in another Member State, a ‘sufficiently close link’ or ‘sufficient link’ can be established between the relevant child-raising periods and those  ‘periods of insurance’, with the result that the legislation of the first Member State applies to those child-raising periods. In the present case, however, the referring court questions whether such a link can be established, given that, after raising her children in Belgium, LF worked in Germany for approximately 20 years before returning to Austria.

25.      In those conditions, the ObersterGerichtshof (Supreme Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘(1)      Is the first part of the first sentence of Article 44(2) of Regulation No 987/2009 to be interpreted as meaning that the Member State which is competent under Title II of Regulation No 883/2004 generally takes no child-raising period into account under its legislation or takes no child-raising period into account in a particular case?

(2)      Is Article 21 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that the Member State responsible for [the] payment of an old-age pension, in the event that the conditions set out in Article 44(2) of Regulation No 987/2009 … are not satisfied, but that the person in question has completed periods of insurance arising from employment both before and after the child-raising periods in [that Member State], is obliged to take the child-raising periods into account irrespective of the fact that the person, following the child-raising periods, also acquired periods of insurance by reason of pursuit of an employed or self-employed activity in a third Member State?’

B.      Case C‑143/25

26.      CV is an Austrian national, born in 1962. Between 1 August 1977 and 31 January 1988, she resided in Austria. She accumulated 126 months of contributions to compulsory insurance, in Austria, by reason of the pursuit of an employed activity (122 months) and the completion of substitute qualifying periods (4 months).

27.      In March 1988, CV moved to Italy. She has been living in Italy ever since. She gave birth to two children, born on 2 May 1989 and 21 April 1994, respectively. She has not pursued any professional activity and has not completed any periods of insurance since moving to Italy.

28.      On 26 September 2022, CV applied to the PVA for the grant of an old-age pension. By decision of 6 July 2023, the PVA rejected CV’s application, on the ground that CV had not reached the minimum of 180 months of insurance, as required by Austrian law, for such a pension to be granted. It also explained that it was not required to take into account the child-raising periods completed by CV in Italy.

29.      CV challenged that decision before the Austrian courts. She claimed that the periods during which she dedicated herself to raising her children in Italy (96 months in total) should have been taken into account by the PVA (‘the periods in dispute in Case C‑143/25’).

30.      The court of first instance dismissed the action. It explained, first, that when her children were born, CV no longer pursued any professional activity; thus, the conditions for Article 44(2) of Regulation No 987/2009 to apply were not fulfilled. Second, the conditions for the periods in dispute to be taken into account under Article 21 TFEU were not fulfilled either, since CV had paid contributions in Austria only prior to the birth of her children.

31.      CV appealed that decision. The court of second instance confirmed the decision of the court of first instance.

32.      CV brought an appeal on a point of law before the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court), which is the referring court.

33.      That court finds that it is clear that CV does not satisfy the third condition listed in Article 44(2) of Regulation No 987/2009, pursuant to which the person concerned must have continued to be subject to Member State A’s legislation because of his or her employed or self-employed activity at the date when, under that Member State’s legislation, the child-raising period began to be taken into account for the child concerned. In casu, on the date when her first child was born, CV was no longer subject to Austrian legislation because of the pursuit of an employed or self-employed activity.

34.      It adds that, according to the case-law of the Court of Justice on Article 21 TFEU, ‘a sufficiently close link’ exists where the person concerned has exclusively worked and paid contributions (or exclusively completed periods of insurance) in a Member State (Member State A), both before and after transferring his or her place of residence to and raising his or her children in another Member State (Member State B). However, should a ‘sufficient close clink’ only exist in such a scenario, it would mean that a person could be treated less favourably by the authorities of Member State A simply because he or she has relocated to Member State B on family grounds, without ever pursuing a gainful activity in Member State A again. That consequence could be avoided if the only decisive factor for the establishment of a ‘sufficiently close link’ was the accumulation of periods of insurance in Member State A prior to (and not after) the completion of child-raising periods.

35.      In those conditions, the ObersterGerichtshof (Supreme Court) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘Is Article 21 TFEU to be interpreted as meaning that the Member State responsible for [the] payment of an old-age pension, in the event that the condition set out in Article 44(2) of Regulation No 987/2009 [concerning the] pursuit of an activity as an employed or self-employed person in that Member State at the date when the child-raising period started to be taken into account for the child concerned is not satisfied, is obliged to take the child-raising periods into account even though the person concerned accumulated periods of insurance by reason of [the] pursuit of an employed or self-employed activity in the Member State responsible for [that] payment … only before the child-raising periods?’

IV.    The procedure before the Court

36.      The requests for a preliminary ruling, dated 11 February 2025, were registered at the Court of Justice on 18 February 2025.

37.      By decision of the President of the Court of 10 May 2023, Cases C‑142/25 and C‑143/25 were joined for the purposes of the written and oral procedure and the judgment.

38.      The PVA, the Austrian and Czech Governments, as well as the European Commission, submitted written observations. Those parties and interested parties, as well as the Federal Republic of Germany, were represented at the hearing which took place on 26 February 2026.

V.      Assessment

39.      As I have explained in my Opinion in Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund, (7) Article 44(2) of Regulation No 987/2009 introduces a special rule determining, in a situation where a person has worked and raised his or her children in different Member States, the circumstances in which Member State A (the Member State where the person has worked) must apply its legislation to the child-raising periods (8) subsequently completed in Member State B and requiring, where that is the case, that those periods be treated as though they had been completed in Member State A.

40.      That obligation of Member State A only applies if ‘no child-raising period is taken into account’ under the legislation of Member State B. Indeed, in principle, the child-raising periods in question should be subject to the legislation of Member State B, which is the Member State of residence of the person concerned during those periods and is, therefore, the ‘Member State which is competent under Title II of Regulation No 883/2004’. (9)

41.      It is precisely that condition (that ‘no child-raising period is taken into account’ under the legislation of Member State B) which the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) asks the Court of Justice to interpret in the first question referred in Case C‑142/25.

42.      In the judgment in Pensionsversicherungsanstalt, that court had already enquired as to whether it must be understood as meaning that Member State B must not have adopted rules allowing, in general, child-raising periods completed on its territory to be taken into account, or as simply requiring that those periods have not been taken into account by that Member State in the specific case at hand. Nevertheless, the Court of Justice did not resolve that issue in its earlier judgment, as the person concerned in that case did not meet the other substantive conditions for Article 44(2) of Regulation No 987/2009 to apply to her situation.

43.      The issue is therefore, raised again in Case C‑142/25. In casu, LF raised her children in Belgium, a Member State whose legislation generally provides for the recognition of child-raising periods. However, that legislation cannot be applied to LF in respect of the periods during which she dedicated herself to raising her children, since she is not affiliated with the Belgian old-age pension scheme. In Belgium, affiliation to the old-age pension scheme typically depends on the completion of relevant ‘periods of insurance’ or equivalent periods. (10) While LF has raised her children in Belgium, she has not completed any such ‘period of insurance’ in that Member State.

44.      I will clarify the scope of the condition relating to the absence of any taking into account of child-raising periods by Member State B contained in Article 44(2) of Regulation No 987/2009 in Section A below. I will then turn to the second question referred in Case C‑142/25 and the single question referred in Case C‑143/25 (Section B). Those questions relate to the Court’s finding in the judgment in Pensionsversicherungsanstalt (which was then confirmed in the judgment in Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund) that Article 44(2) of Regulation No 987/2009 does not ‘[govern] exclusively the taking into account of child-raising periods’. (11) Thus, and as I have stated in the introduction, when a person does not meet the conditions to rely on that provision, Member State A is still required to apply its legislation to the child-raising periods completed in Member State B and to take those periods into account as though they have been completed on its own territory if a ‘sufficiently close link’ (or even a mere ‘sufficient link’) (12) exists between the child-raising periods in question and the ‘periods of insurance’ completed in Member State A. (13). The Court has found that that obligation stems directly from Article 21 TFEU, which protects the European Union citizens’ right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.

45.      All of the cases in which the Court has applied the ‘sufficiently close link’ or ‘sufficient link’ test thus far have concerned the situation where the person concerned had worked (or otherwise acquired ‘periods of insurance’) in Member State A (i) both before and after raising his or her children in Member State B and (ii) exclusively. The situations at issue in the present cases are different: in Case C‑142/25, LF worked in Austria prior to raising her children in Belgium. However, after completing the child-raising periods in dispute in Belgium, she went on to work in Germany for 20 years, before returning and having an occupational activity in Austria again. In Case C‑143/25, CV moved to Italy to raise her children and never returned to the Member State where she had previously acquired ‘periods of insurance’ (Austria), nor worked in any other Member State. Those cases thus provide the Court with the opportunity to examine whether the ‘sufficiently close link’ or ‘sufficient link’ test can be expanded to such situations.

A.      The first question in Case C‑142/25

46.      From the outset, I note that the wording of Article 44(2) of Regulation No 987/2009 is somewhat ambiguous, (14) since the condition relating to the absence of any taking into account of child-raising periods by Member State B contained in that provision is formulated as follows: ‘where, under the legislation of [Member State B], no child-raising period is taken into account …’. As I have already stated, the referring court explains that that could mean either that Member State B’s legislation does not enable, in general, child-raising periods to be taken into account for the purpose of granting an old-age pension (I shall call this ‘the abstract or general approach’) or that such taking account is generally possible but, in the particular case at hand, the person concerned does not meet the requirements for such periods to be recognised under the legislation of Member State B (‘the individual approach’).

47.      The PVA, the Austrian Government and the Commission support the first interpretation. The Czech Government, relying on a report of the ad hoc  group on child-raising periods of the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems (15) (which, however, has not been formally adopted by that commission), (16) defends the second interpretation. It argues that, if the abstract or general approach were followed, Article 44(2) of Regulation No 987/2009 would be largely deprived of practical effect, since it could rarely be applied. That is because the report of the Administrative Commission for the coordination of Social Security System shows that, in practice, only one Member State (Denmark) has not adopted legislation enabling, in general, the taking into account of child-raising periods.

48.      At the hearing, the Federal Republic of Germany suggested a third interpretation. It agreed with the PVA, the Austrian Government and the Commission that Article 44(2) of Regulation No 987/2009 concerns the situation where Member State B’s legislation does not, in general, enable the taking into account of child-raising periods for the purpose of granting an old-age pension. However, it added that that provision also applies where the person concerned has raised his or her children in a Member State whose legislation generally allows child-raising periods to be taken into account (here, Belgium), but he or she has not become affiliated to the pension scheme of that Member State, having not completed any periods giving rise to pension rights there. Thus, the legislation of Member State B cannot be applied to him or her in respect of the child-raising periods in question.

49.      LF is precisely in that situation. As I have explained in point 42 above, she raised her children in Belgium, where national legislation generally allows child-raising periods to be taken into account. However, Belgian law also provides that a person who, like LF, has completed only ‘periods of residence’ (and no ‘periods of insurance’) in that Member State is not entitled to an old-age pension and, thus, does not become affiliated to the Belgian pension scheme. From what I understand, the reason why no child-raising period was taken into account by the relevant Belgian authorities in LF’s case is therefore that the Belgian legislation on child-raising periods in fact could not be applied to LF in respect of the periods in dispute in Case C-142/25 because she was excluded from the Belgian pension scheme altogether.

50.      I shall explain why I fully endorse the position of the Federal Republic of Germany.

51.      To begin with, I recall that, in my Opinion in Pensionsversicherungsanstalt (Child-raising periods completed abroad) , (17) I already stated that, in my view, Article 44(2) of Regulation No 987/2009 was not adopted so that old-age pension applicants may try their luck before the competent authorities of different Member States and have the legislations of different Member States applied to them with regard to the same child-raising periods.

52.      That is a direct consequence of the fact that the overarching purpose of Regulations No 883/2004 and No 987/2009 is ‘to draw up only a system of coordination’, (18) and that one of the cardinal principles of those instruments is that the person to whom they apply ‘shall be subject to the legislation of a single Member State only’. (19) As the Court’s case-law confirms, the system of coordination put in place by Regulations No 883/2004 and No 987/2009, aims to prevent the simultaneous application of several national legislative systems and the complications that may ensue. (20)

53.      Within that context, it is therefore clear that Article 44(2) of Regulation No 987/2009, which carves out an exception to the rules of competence provided for in Title II of Regulation No 883/2004 by making a Member State that is no longer competent under such rules (Member State A) responsible for taking into account child-raising periods completed in another Member State (Member State B), must be understood as introducing a subsidiary competence, not a dual one. (21)

54.      Those considerations already led me to conclude, in my Opinion in Pensionsversicherungsanstalt (Child-raising periods completed abroad), (22) that the Court should avoid interpreting Article 44(2) of Regulation No 987/2009 in the manner suggested by the Czech Government (the individual approach), namely as allowing a person, first, to have the authorities of Member State B apply their national legislation to him or her with regard to the child-raising periods completed there, and then, if those periods are in fact not taken into account for the purpose of granting him or her an old-age pension (for substantive or procedural reasons), to go before the authorities of Member State A and have the legislation of that Member State applied to him or her in respect of the same periods. I explained that, instead, the Court should find that that provision applies in the situation where Member State B’s legislation does not enable in general the taking into account of child-raising periods (the abstract or general approach).

55.      I remained convinced that that interpretation is to be favoured over the one proposed by the Czech Government.

56.      That said, and given that I can hardly find, at present, a single Member State whose legislation does not in some form or another allow the periods during which a person devoted himself or herself to raising his or her children to be taken into account for the purpose of granting an old-age pension, (23)I agree with the Federal Republic of Germany that Article 44(2) of Regulation No 987/2009 applies not only in situations where Member State B’s legislation does not enable in general the taking into account of child-raising periods, but also in cases such as that of LF in the main proceedings, where the person concerned has raised his or her children in a Member State whose legislation generally allows child-raising periods to be taken into account (in casu, Belgium), but that legislation cannot be applied to him or her, in respect of those periods, because he or she was never affiliated with that Member State’s pension scheme.

57.      In that regard, I recall that the Court has stated that the system of coordination put in place by Regulation No 883/2004 (and, therefore, by Regulation No 987/2009) also pursues the objective of ensuring that the persons covered by that regulation are not left without social security cover by virtue of the fact that no legislation is applicable to them. (24) Such a result is precisely the one which would ensue in the main proceedings in case C‑142/25 if the interpretation of the Federal Republic of Germany were not endorsed by the Court.

58.      Indeed, if only the ‘general or abstract’ approach were followed, a person such as LF would find himself or herself in a legal vacuum as regards the periods in dispute in Case C‑142/25. Austrian legislation would not be applicable to her in respect of those periods for the sole reason that Belgium has adopted legislation which generally allows child-raising periods to be taken into account. No regard would be had to the fact that the Belgian legislation itself is inapplicable to LF, in respect of the same periods.

59.      In the light of those elements, I consider that Article 44(2) of Regulation No  987/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that it applies in a situation where Member State B’s legislation does not enable in general the taking into account of child-raising periods, as well as in a situation where that Member State’s legislation generally allows child-raising periods to be taken into account, but that legislation cannot be applied to the person concerned, in respect of the child-raising periods which she has completed in Member State B, because he or she was never affiliated with that Member State’s pension scheme.

60.      I shall now respond more precisely to the arguments put forward by the Czech Government and explain why the interpretation proposed by that government is not necessary to preserve the practical effect of Article 44(2) of Regulation No 987/2009.

61.      In that regard, I recall that where a provision of EU law is open to several interpretations, preference must be given to the interpretation which ensures that the provision retains its effectiveness. (25)

62.      However, first, as I have explained in point 52 above, the Czech Government’s interpretation runs counter to the objective of Regulations No 883/2004 and No 987/2009, which is to prevent the simultaneous application of several national legislative systems and the complications that may ensue.

63.      Second, the discussion regarding the scope of Article 44(2) of Regulation No 987/2009 and, more precisely, the condition that ‘under the legislation of [Member State B], no child-raising period is taken into account …’, has, to date, (26) been framed in strictly binary terms: either Member State B must have no legal framework allowing, in general, such periods to be recognised for the purposes of granting an old-age pension, or such a framework exists and is applicable to the person concerned, but he or she does not satisfy the (procedural or substantive) conditions required for those periods to be taken into account.

64.      Yet, as I have explained, a third interpretation of Article 44(2) of Regulation No 987/2009 (the ‘intermediate’ solution defended by the Federal Republic of Germany) is possible. Should the Court, as I suggest, adopt that interpretation, the application of that provision would also cover circumstances such as those in the main proceedings in Case C‑142/25, where the individual concerned (in this case, LF) has raised his or her children in a Member State whose legislation generally allows child-raising periods to be taken into account ( in casu, Belgium), but that legislation cannot be applied to him or her in respect of the child-raising periods in question because he or she was never affiliated with that Member State’s pension scheme.

65.      That situation may arise more frequently than one might initially assume, Belgium being only one example of a Member State in which the completion of mere periods of residence is insufficient to give rise to affiliation to the old-age pension scheme. Based on my research, in fact only a handful of Member States (including the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and Finland) have adopted residence-based (or largely residence-based) basic pension systems, where entitlement is primarily linked to residence. In most other Member States, pension rights are instead built up through ‘periods of insurance’, including periods equivalent to ‘periods of insurance’ (for example, periods during which the person receives a benefit which generates pension rights). Thus, a person who merely resides in those Member States while raising his or her children, without completing any such ‘periods of insurance’, may find himself or herself in a situation akin to that of LF.

66.      In my Opinion in Pensionsversicherungsanstalt (Child-raising periods completed abroad), (27)I also observed that the ‘individual approach’ (defended here by the Czech Government) should be rejected because it would be unduly cumbersome and impractical to require the authorities of Member State A to assess whether a person’s claim for the recognition of child-raising periods would actually be successful under the legislation of Member State B, in order to determine whether they are obliged to apply their own legislation to that person’s situation. The same is not true, in my view, under the ‘intermediate approach’ suggested by the Federal Republic of Germany, as, under that approach, the authorities of Member State A would only need to determine whether the person concerned is affiliated or not to the pension scheme of Member State B.

67.      In my view, the difficulties which I have just mentioned with regard to the ‘individual approach’ are only exacerbated by the fact that, as the Federal Republic of Germany stated at the hearing, the way that child-raising periods are taken into account varies greatly across Member States.

68.      For example, certain Member States limit the number of years which may be taken into account as child-raising periods more than others (by imposing a fixed number of years per child or a maximum number of years regardless of the number of children). In such a situation, should the years outside of those limits be regarded, under the individual approach, as a child-raising periods which are not taken into account? If so, should the person concerned have the right to have those additional periods assessed under the legislation of Member State A, simply because that legislation provides a more favourable outcome? As I have already explained, I do not think that Article 44(2) of Regulation No 987/2009 was intended by the EU legislature to allow such an outcome. The Austrian Government correctly stated at the hearing that this could have the undesirable consequence that Member States with more generous legislation on the taking into account of child-raising periods might amend their laws to make them less favourable to applicants, in order to avoid being overburdened (a levelling-down effect).

69.      Before I turn to examining the second question in Case C‑142/25 and the only question in Case C‑143/25, I wish to make two further remarks.

70.      First, given the ambiguous wording of Article 44(2) of Regulation No 987/2009, I would urge the EU legislature to clarify the meaning of the condition relating to the absence of any taking into account of child-raising periods by Member State B laid down in that provision in line with the interpretation which I propose, by adopting, as the case may be, a new legislative provision.

71.      Second, I recall that, in my view, the condition relating to the absence of any taking into account of child-raising periods by Member State B which is laid down in Article 44(2) of Regulation No 987/2009 applies mutatis mutandis when the person concerned cannot base his or her claim on that provision and must rely instead on Article 21 TFEU and the ‘sufficiently close link’ or ‘sufficient link’ test developed by the Court in its case-law. (28) I detailed the reasons which support that interpretation in my Opinion in Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund. (29) I do not see the need to restate them in the present Opinion.

B.      The second question in Case C‑142/25 and the single question in Case C‑143/25

72.      By the second question in Case C‑142/25 and the single question in Case C‑143/25, the referring court enquires, in essence, as to what constitutes a ‘sufficiently close link’ or ‘sufficient link’ between the child-raising periods completed in Member State B and the ‘periods of insurance’ completed in Member State A, giving rise – under Article 21 TFEU – to an obligation, for the authorities of that Member State, to apply their legislation to those child-raising periods and treat them as though they had been completed in the territory of Member State A.

73.      I recall that the ‘sufficiently close link’ or ‘sufficient link’ test was developed by the Court in its case-law prior to the adoption of Regulations No 883/2004 and No 987/2009, in the context of the application of the general rules contained in Regulation No 1408/71, which did not include any specific provision on child-raising periods. (30)

74.      However, the Court subsequently decided in the judgment in Pensionsversicherungsanstalt and the judgment in Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund that the ‘sufficiently close link’ or ‘sufficient link’ test remains relevant in the context of the application of Regulations No 883/2004 and No 987/2009, in situations where the conditions listed in Article 44(2) of Regulation No 987/2009 are not met. I recall that, pursuant to that provision, the obligation of Member State A to apply its legislation to the child-raising periods completed in Member State B and treat them as though they had been completed in its territory depends on the three following conditions being cumulatively satisfied:

–        no child-raising period is taken into account under the legislation of Member State B (I examined that condition in section A above);

–        the legislation of Member State A was previously applicable to the person concerned on the ground that he or she was pursuing an activity as an employed or self-employed person in that Member State; and

–        that person continued to be subject to Member State A’s legislation because of that activity at the date when, under that Member State’s legislation, the child-raising period began to be taken into account for the child concerned.

75.      In the present cases, it is apparent that neither LF nor CV satisfies the third condition set out in Article 44(2) of Regulation No 987/2009, as they were no longer subject to the legislation of Member State A (Austria) on the basis of an employed or self-employed activity at the date on which, pursuant to Austrian legislation, the periods in dispute would begin to be taken into account. From what I understand, in LF’s case, the failure to meet the third condition listed in Article 44(2) of Regulation No 987/2009 only affects the child-raising periods accumulated by her with respect to her second child.

76.      A similar failure to meet that condition (and, therefore, impossibility to rely on Article 44(2) of Regulation No 987/2009) already arose in the cases which led to the judgment in Pensionsversicherungsanstalt and the judgment in Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund. Yet, in both cases, the Court found that the child-raising periods in dispute were ‘sufficiently closely linked’ or ‘sufficiently linked’ to periods during which the person concerned had worked and paid contributions in Member State  A or to ‘periods of insurance’ or periods which could be assimilated to ‘periods of insurance’ completed in that Member State. (31) Thus, by virtue of Article 21  TFEU, the legislation of Member State A had to apply to those child-raising periods.

77.      In the operative part of both judgments, the Court pointed out that the person concerned had paid contributions or otherwise completed ‘periods of insurance’ exclusively in the first Member State (Member State A), both before and after the completion of the relevant child-raising periods.

78.      Against that background, it is unclear whether the ‘sufficiently close link’ or ‘sufficient link’ test is also met where, as is the case in the main proceedings, the person concerned has not done so exclusively (Case C‑142/25) or has done so exclusively but only before and not after the child-raising periods in dispute were completed in Member State B (Case C‑143/25).

79.      In my view, and as I have already explained in my Opinion in Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund, (32) the ‘sufficiently close link’ or ‘sufficient link’ test must be based on two components. First, the person concerned must have completed ‘periods of insurance’ in Member State A before (but not necessarily after) raising his or her children in Member State B. Second, Member State A must be the last Member State in which that person completed such ‘periods of insurance’ before he or she raised his or her children in Member State B. It should not be required that the person completed relevant ‘periods of insurance’ exclusively in Member State A, both before and after raising his or her children in Member State B.

80.      The reasons which lead me to that conclusion can be summarised as follows.

81.      First, I consider that, although the Court has decided that the ‘sufficiently close link’ or ‘sufficient link’ test remains relevant in a situation where Regulations No 883/2004 and No 987/2009 apply but the conditions listed in Article 44(2) of the latter regulation are not fulfilled, it has never sought to define the limits of that test in a systemised manner, opting instead for a piecemeal approach, based, each time, on the circumstances of the case at hand. As such, different factors, including the fact that the applicants had worked exclusively in Member State A or that they had contributed exclusively in that Member State, were emphasised in the judgments in Elsen, in Kauer, in Reichel-Albert and in Pensionsversicherungsanstalt, without any of them being singled out as decisive. (33) Consequently, I do not interpret the fact that the applicant paid contributions or otherwise completed ‘periods of insurance’ exclusively in the first Member State (Member State A), both before and after the relevant child-raising periods, as a condition sine qua non.

82.      Second, as I noted in my Opinion in Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund, (34)past judgments in which the ‘sufficiently close link’ test or ‘sufficient link’ test was applied show the Court’s inclination to expand rather than limit the number of situations in which Member State A may be required to apply its legislation to child-raising periods completed in Member State B. For example, whereas in the judgments in Elsen and in Kauer the applicants had remained subject to the legislation of Member State A until the child-raising periods completed abroad began to run, (35) the same was not true of the applicants in the judgments in Reichel-Albert and in Pensionsversicherungsanstalt, (36)and yet that did not prevent the Court from concluding that a ‘sufficiently close link’ existed in both of those cases. On that basis, it seems to me that the fact that, after dedicating time to raising their children, the applicants in the main proceedings either worked in another Member State (Germany) before taking up employment again in Austria (LF in Case C‑142/25), or did not resume gainful employment or even return to Austria after their children were born (CV in Case C‑143/25), would not necessarily be regarded by the Court as factors disqualifying them from satisfying the ‘sufficiently close link’ or ‘sufficient link’ test.

83.      Third, requiring that the person concerned must have worked exclusively in one Member State (Member State A) throughout his or her life (both before and after raising his or her children in Member State B) would work to the disadvantage of citizens who, like LF, have had a gainful activity in several Member States (in casu, both Austria and Germany) and have thereby exercised their right to freedom of movement in application of the provisions of the TFEU. In my view, Article 21 TFEU – which, as I have already recalled in point 43 above, protects the European Union citizens’ right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States – cannot lead to the situation where a person is deprived of the opportunity to rely on the legislation of Member State A for the child-raising periods which he or she has completed in Member State B, simply because he or she has thereafter worked in Member State C and no longer in Member State A. In fact, the opposite conclusion would result in an unjustified and disproportionate interference with that right.

84.      Granted, the factual scenario envisaged by the EU legislature when it adopted Article 44(2) of Regulation No 987/2009 appears, as the Commission pointed out at the hearing, to have been premised on the person concerned moving his or her residence between only two Member States (Member State A, the Member State of employment, and Member State B, the Member State where the children were raised). That is clear from Article 44(3) of that regulation, which provides that the obligation laid down in paragraph 2 of that article does not apply where ‘the person concerned is, or becomes, subject to the legislation of another Member State due to the pursuit of an employed or self-employed activity.’

85.      That does not, however, mean that the same limitation must apply where the person concerned relies instead on the ‘sufficiently close link’ or ‘sufficient link’ test , which, for its part, is based on Article 21 TFEU. Indeed, the Court has relied on that test precisely in situations in which the conditions for the application of Article 44(2) of Regulation No 987/2009 were not met, in order to compensate for certain shortcomings of that provision.

86.      Fourth, and as regards the situation at hand in Case C‑143/25, it is clear to me that the decisive factor for the establishment of a ‘sufficiently close link’ or ‘sufficient link’ must be that the person concerned has completed ‘periods of insurance’ in Member State A before, but not necessarily after, raising his or her children in Member State B. As I have explained in my Opinion in Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund, (37) the fact that the person concerned has gone back to work in Member State A after the child-raising periods completed in Member State B have ended may reinforce the conclusion that such a link exists (as seems to have been the case in the judgments in Reichel-Albert, in Pensionsversicherungsanstaltand in Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund). However, it is not a precondition to its existence.

87.      Indeed, if the person concerned were required, in order to benefit from the legislation of Member State A, to work again or to complete further ‘periods of insurance’ in that member State after raising his or her children in member State B, he or she would, again, be affected in the exercise of his or her right to move and reside freely in other Member States, in a manner which would be contrary to Article 21 TFEU.

88.      In the light of those considerations, I am of the view that Article 21 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it does not require, for a ‘sufficiently close link’ or ‘sufficient link’ to be established, that ‘periods of insurance’ be accomplished by the person concerned exclusively in Member State A, both before and after raising his or her children in Member State B.

89.      With that said, I would like to emphasise that the ‘expansion’ of the ‘sufficiently close link’ or ‘sufficient link’ test which I suggest the Court to adopt in the present cases should not be understood as an invitation for it to open the door to an ever-expanding range of situations falling within the scope of that test.

90.      On the contrary, in my Opinion in Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund, (38) I encouraged the Court to define, and limit, the scope of that test, so that the EU legislature could eventually adopt a legislative provision to replace Article 44(2) of Regulation No 987/2009. It was with that objective in mind that I indicated that the ‘sufficiently close link’ or ‘sufficient link’ test depends, first, on whether the person concerned has completed ‘periods of insurance’ in Member State A before (but not necessarily after) raising his or her children in Member State B and, second, on whether Member State A is the last Member State in which that person has completed such ‘periods of insurance’ before raising his or her children in Member State B. (39)My position in that regard remains unchanged.

91.      In particular, I consider that, with those criteria, the ‘sufficiently close link’ or ‘sufficient link’ test can only be satisfied, in each given individual case, with regard to a single Member State (here, in both cases, Austria). I would advise the Court not to follow the suggestion of the Commission, which would consist in concluding, in case C‑142/25, that an applicant such as LF is entitled to have the child-raising periods in dispute taken into account by both Austria and Germany on a pro rata temporisbasis, given that she has completed ‘periods of insurance’ in both Member States either before or after raising her children in Belgium.

VI.    Conclusion

92.      In the light of all of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court answer the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court, Austria) as follows:

(1)      Article 44(2) 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 it applies not only in situations where the legislation of the Member State where the person concerned has raised his or her children does not enable in general the taking into account of child-raising periods, but also in cases where that person has raised his or her children in a Member State whose legislation generally allows child-raising periods to be taken into account, but that legislation cannot be applied to him or her, in respect of those child-raising periods, because he or she was never affiliated with that Member State’s pension scheme.

(2)      Article 21 TFEU

must be interpreted as meaning that the Member State responsible for the payment of an old-age pension is required to apply its legislation and to take account of child-raising periods completed in another Member State as though such periods had been completed on its territory, provided, first, that the person concerned completed ‘periods of insurance’ in the first Member State before he or she transferred his or her residence to the second Member State, and, second, that the first Member State was the last Member State in which he or she completed such ‘periods of insurance’ before that transfer. It should not be required that the person completed relevant ‘periods of insurance’ exclusively in that Member State, both before and after raising his or her children in the second Member State.

1      Original language: English.

i      The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

2      See judgments of 7 July 2022, Pensionsversicherungsanstalt (Child-raising periods completed abroad) (C‑576/20, ‘the judgment in Pensionsversicherungsanstalt’, EU:C:2022:525), and of 22 February 2024, Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund (C‑283/21, ‘the judgment in Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund’, EU:C:2024:144).

3      Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 (OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1).

4      That test was first developed in the judgments of 23 November 2000, Elsen (C‑135/99, ‘the judgment in Elsen’, EU:C:2000:647); of 7 February 2002, Kauer (C‑28/00, ‘the judgment in Kauer’, EU:C:2002:82); and of 19 July 2012, Reichel-Albert (C‑522/10, ‘the judgment in Reichel-Albert’, EU:C:2012:475), in the context of the application of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition Series I  Volume 1971(II), p. 416). That regulation has been repealed and replaced by 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, and corrigendum OJ 2004 L 200, p. 1) and Regulation No 987/2009.

5      See judgments of 7 July 2022, Pensionsversicherungsanstalt (Child-raising periods completed abroad) (C‑576/20, ‘the judgment in Pensionsversicherungsanstalt’, EU:C:2022:525), and of 22 February 2024, Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund (C‑283/21, ‘the judgment in Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund’, EU:C:2024:144).

6      Both expressions have been used by the Court in its case-law.

7      C‑283/21, ‘my Opinion in Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund’, EU:C:2023:736, point 29.

8      The term ‘child-raising period’ is defined in Article 44(1) of Regulation No 987/2009 (see point 8 above).

9      See Article 11(3)(e) of Regulation No 883/2004.

10      The term ‘periods of insurance’ is defined in Article 1(t) of Regulation No 883/2004 as ‘periods of contribution, employment or self-employment as defined or recognised as periods of insurance by the legislation under which they were completed or considered as completed, and all periods treated as such, where they are regarded by the said legislation as equivalent to periods of insurance’.

11      See the judgment in Pensionsversicherungsanstalt, paragraph 55.

12      See paragraphs 46 and 47 of the judgment in Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund.

13      Ibid., paragraph 66. See also my Opinion in Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund , point 33.

14      See my Opinion in Pensionsversicherungsanstalt (Child-raising periods completed abroad) (C‑576/20, ‘my Opinion in Pensionsversicherungsanstalt (Child-raising periods completed abroad)’, EU:C:2022:75, point 85). I note that other language versions of Article 44(2) of Regulation No 987/2009, such as the Czech, French, German, Greek, Italian and Spanish versions, are equally ambivalent.

15      The Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems comprises a representative of the government of each Member State and a representative of the Commission. It is responsible for dealing with administrative matters, questions of interpretation arising from the provisions of EU regulations on social security coordination, and for promoting and developing collaboration between Member States. The composition, operation and tasks of the Administrative Commission are laid down by Articles 71 and 72 of Regulation No 883/2004.

16      See, in particular, the webpage dedicated to official documents on which the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems, available at: https://employment-social-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies-and-activities/moving-working-europe/eu-social-security-coordination/specialised-information/official-documents_en.

17      Point 88.

18      See, inter alia, recital 4 of Regulation No 883/2004.

19      See Article 11(1) of Regulation No 883/2004.

20      See, to that effect, judgment of 5 March 2020, Pensionsversicherungsanstalt (Rehabilitation benefit) (C‑135/19, EU:C:2020:177, paragraph 46).

21      See my Opinion in Pensionsversicherungsanstalt (Child-raising periods completed abroad), point 64.

22      See points 86 to 89 of that Opinion.

23      Even in Denmark, such periods may in fact be taken into account, since, under that Member State’s legislation, any ‘period of residence’ completed in that Member State confers entitlement to pension rights, regardless of whether such a ‘period of residence’ corresponded or not to a ‘child-raising period’.

24      See, to that effect, judgment of 5 March 2020, Pensionsversicherungsanstalt (Rehabilitation benefit) (C‑135/19, EU:C:2020:177, paragraph 46).

25      See judgment of 1 August 2025, Tradeinn Retail Services (C‑76/24, EU:C:2025:593, paragraph 43 and the case-law cited).

26      See Opinion of Advocate General Jääskinen in Reichel-Albert (C‑522/10, EU:C:2012:114, point 67) and my Opinion in Pensionsversicherungsanstalt (Child-raising periods completed abroad)(point 83), as well as the wording of the second question referred by the national courts in that last case.

27      See points 86 to 89 of that Opinion.

28      See the judgments referenced in footnotes 4 and 5 above.

29      See points 38 to 43 of that Opinion.

30      For a recounting of the cases having led to the emergence of that case, see my Opinion in Pensionsversicherungsanstalt (Child-raising periods completed abroad), points 38 to 47.

31      This was clarified in the judgment in Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund, where the person concerned had only completed periods that could be assimilated to ‘periods of insurance’ in Member State A before raising her children in Member State B, without paying contributions to the statutory insurance scheme of that first Member State.

32      Points 49 to 72 of that Opinion.

33      For example, in its judgment in Elsen, the Court found that because there was a ‘close link’ between those periods and Ms Elsen’s periods of activity in Germany, Ms Elsen could not be regarded as having ceased all ‘occupational activity’ or as being subject for that reason to the legislation of the Member State in which she resided (France). By contrast, in its judgment in Reichel-Albert, it seems to me that the Court’s conclusion was somehow influenced by different considerations. First, Ms Reichel-Albert had worked and contributed in only one Member State (Germany), both before and after temporarily transferring her place of residence to another Member State (Belgium) where she had never worked. Second, Ms Reichel-Albert had moved to Belgium solely on family related grounds and directly from Germany, where she had been employed up until the month prior to her move.

34      Point 53 of that Opinion.

35      See the judgments in Elsen(paragraph 26) and in Kauer(paragraph 32).

36      Indeed, in both of those cases, the applicant had stopped being subject to the legislation of Member State A several months or even more than a year before such periods began to run.

37      Points 68 and 69 of that Opinion.

38      Points 52 and 55 of that Opinion.

39      In that Opinion (point 70), I explained that, in my view, the ‘periods of insurance’ completed in Member State A need not immediately precede the periods devoted to child-raising. However, if a person completes ‘periods of insurance’ in Member State A and then in Member State C before raising his or her children in Member State B, then Member State, rather than Member State A, must apply its legislation to the child-raising periods in question.