Hartmann [2007 pending]
The pending case Hartmann (C-212/05) is based on the refusal of the German Freistaat Bayern to give a child raising allowance for Ms. Hartmann who is an Austrian citizen living in Austria with her German husband and their three children. Ms. Hartmann is a house wife and Mr. Hartmann works in Germany for Deustche Telekom. The refusal was based on the fact that she was no longer living in Germany nor did she had a labor contract anymore in that country.
The Advocate General held in his conclusions of 28 September 2006 that the main purpose of the right to social benefits was to promote the integration of the worker into the country of employment. The situation of the frontier workers is a little bit different. As frontier workers are not living in that state, there is no need to facilitate their integration there. In his view (supported by several intervening Member States) the equal treatment for frontier workers and his family members should be limited to advantages which are closely linked to the objective status of a worker. This is not the case, according to the AG, with family benefits such as the German child raising allowance which is at stake in this case. Such benefits are linked to the purpose of integration of the family into the society and linked to social and demographic policies which are proper to a particular Member State and its territory. The AG concludes in this case that a frontier worker, who cannot invoke the provisions on export of family benefits in Regulation 1408/71 because he is not covered by it, cannot invoke Article 7 of Regulation 1612/68 either in order to claim this export.
The ECJ limits the right to equal treatment for social advantages to these advantages having a close link with the status of worker, only for former workers, whereas the AG proposes in Hartmann case to do it for all frontier workers, including those who are still economically active.
We will now have to wait for the ECJ’s view on the AG’s position, and then we will return with details on this case.
Text of the ECJ judgment
Text of the AG opinion
November 3rd, 2007 at 8:54 pm
OK, here is the question. Doesn’t the AG’s opinion run contrary to the decision in the Hosse case:
“The ECJ ruled that the grant of sickness benefits should not be conditional on the residence of the members of the worker’s family in the Member State of the place of employment, so as not to deter Community workers from exercising their right to freedom of movement. It would therefore be contrary to the Regulation 1408/71 to deprive the daughter of a worker of a benefit she would be entitled to if she were resident in that Member State.”
May 13th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Sorry, You are working in another country but your family are at home , say Poland. They should recieve benifit from the home country and not the emloyer country of the husband or partner. This means that they are indeed getting paid twice and on payment say from the UK is not the same exchange rate as Poland. Somthing a miss here. EU gone mad gain.
June 10th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Well written. I enjoyed reading it and look forward to the next law articles from you.