Case C-802/18 Caisse pour l'avenir des enfants v FV, GW: Equal treatment of workers or of children?: Note on Case C-802/18 Caisse pour l’avenir des enfants, 2 April 2020 and pending cases against Austria
| Published date | 01 August 2020 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1023263X20940950 |
| Date | 01 August 2020 |
| Author | Grega Strban |
| Subject Matter | Case Notes |
Case Note
Case C-802/18 Caisse pour
l’avenir des enfants v FV, GW:
Equal treatment of workers or
of children?
Note on Case C-802/18 Caisse pour l’avenir
des enfants, 2 April 2020 and pending cases against Austria
Grega Strban*
Abstract
Providing family benefits in cross-border situations is one of the most complex chapters of the
EU social security coordination law. Not only is there a great variety of family benefits, but also
family structures are very distinct. The CJEU does not have an easy task in protecting the EU
values. As a rule, it tries to construe the EU law as a whole, making it more internally coherent,
rather than giving priority to one or another secondary legislative act. In the present case, it had
to test national legislation against the EU law on social security coordination and freedom of
movement. However, the question is whether the direct EU definition of a family should have
priority over the EU definition referring to national law, hence depriving Member States of their
own family policy concepts. The Court has not only emphasized the importance of equal
treatment of (frontier) cross-border workers, but also respect of family and private life. Decision
in the present case might play an important role also in others to follow (e.g. against adjusted
export of Austrian family benefits).
Keywords
Family benefits, social security coordination, free movement of workers, frontier worker, EU
social security law
* University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Law
Corresponding author:
Grega Strban, University of Ljubljana, Faculty of law, Poljanski nasip 2 Ljubljana, 1000 Slovenia.
E-mail: grega.strban@pf.uni-lj.si
Maastricht Journal of European and
Comparative Law
2020, Vol. 27(4) 522–528
ªThe Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1023263X20940950
maastrichtjournal.sagepub.com
MJ
MJ
To continue reading
Request your trial