Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62014CN0453

Case C-453/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 29 September 2014  — Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse, Alfred Knauer

OJ C 462, 22.12.2014, p. 15–15 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

22.12.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 462/15


Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 29 September 2014 — Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse, Alfred Knauer

(Case C-453/14)

(2014/C 462/24)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse, Alfred Knauer

Defendant: Landeshauptmann von Vorarlberg

Intervening party: Rudolf Mathis

Questions referred

Is Article 5 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 (1), having regard to Article 45 TFEU, to be interpreted as meaning that old-age pensions under an occupational pension scheme (which is initiated and guaranteed by the state, is intended to enable the previous standard of living of the individual concerned to be maintained in an appropriate way, operates on the basis of the principle of capitalisation, is compulsory in principle but may also provide for ‘supplementary, non-compulsory’ contributions that exceed the statutory minimum amount and for correspondingly higher benefits, and the implementation of which falls to a pension fund to be set up or used by the employer, such as — in the present case — the ‘second-pillar’ pension scheme in Liechtenstein), and old-age pensions under a statutory pension scheme (which is likewise initiated and guaranteed by the state, is intended to enable the previous standard of living of the individual concerned to be maintained in an appropriate way, but operates on the basis of the ‘pay-as-you-go’ principle, and the implementation of which falls to pension insurance funds established by statute, such as — in the present case — Austria’s pension scheme) are ‘equivalent’ within the meaning of the abovementioned provision?


(1)  OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1.


Top