|
7.5.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 139/7 |
Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Tanja Borger v Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse
(Case C-516/09) (1)
(Social security for workers - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Scope ratione personae - Interpretation of the term ‘employed person’ - Benefits for a dependent child - Extension of unpaid leave)
2011/C 139/11
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Oberster Gerichtshof
Parties to the main proceedings
Claimant: Tanja Borger
Defendant: Tiroler Gebietskrankenkasse
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 1(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 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 1971(II), p. 416) — Childcare allowance — Scope ratione personae — Interpretation of the term ‘employed person’ — Person residing in Switzerland and agreeing with her employer, established in a Member State, a suspension of their employment relationship by reason of the birth of her child (‘Karenz’) for a period exceeding the two-year period provided for by the law of that Member State
Operative part of the judgment
The status of an ‘employed person’, within the meaning of Article 1(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998, must be attributed to a person in a situation such as that of the claimant in the main proceedings during the six-month period of extended unpaid leave following the birth of her child, on condition that, during that period, that person is covered, even if only in respect of a single risk, on a compulsory or optional basis, by a general or special social security scheme mentioned in Article 1(a) of that regulation. It is for the national court to determine whether that condition is satisfied in the dispute before it.