It is contrary to Community law for the amount of a pension awarded to a salaried worker under the pension scheme of a Member State to be reduced as a result of the award of another pension to his or her spouse under the pension scheme of another Member State where the couple's income is left unchanged
Mr Engelbrecht has been employed in the Netherlands and in Belgium. From 1958 to 1993 he contributed to the corresponding pension schemes.
He retired at the age of 65 in May 1993. He then received Netherlands and Belgian pensions.
The Netherlands legislation provides for an old-age pension to be paid at the "full rate" to a married person running a household on a permanent basis with a partner under 65.
As from her 65th birthday in 16 August 1994 Mrs Engelbrecht received a Netherlands old-age pension.
Until then, the Netherlands social insurance bank had paid Mr Engelbrecht a "monthly supplement in respect of his wife" which was then withdrawn. The couple's total income was not, however, affected by those changes.
Taking into account the old-age pension awarded to Mrs Engelbrecht under the Netherlands scheme, the Belgian pensions office decided to convert the Belgian pension awarded to Mr Engelbrecht at the "household rate" (75%) into a pension at the "single rate" (60%).
The Belgian pensions office applied the anti-overlapping legislation under which workers cannot claim the household rate if their spouse is in receipt of a pension or equivalent benefit paid by another fund.
The Belgian court before which the proceedings between Mr Engelbrecht and the Belgian pensions office have been brought has asked the Court of Justice whether that legislation is compatible with the principle of freedom of movement for workers: does national over-lapping legislation of that kind constitute an obstacle to freedom of movement for workers?
The Court notes, first of all, that the Member States retain their powers to organise their social security systems. Nevertheless, it considers that the exercise of the right to freedom of movement by migrant workers must not cause them to lose social security advantages guaranteed to them by the laws of a Member State.
The exercise of that right for workers to move freely within the Community is impeded if a social advantage is lost or reduced simply because a benefit of the same kind awarded to a worker's spouse is taken into account even when there has been no increase in the couple's total income.
In those circumstances, it is contrary to Community law for a provision of law to provide for a worker's pension to be reduced by the amount of the pension awarded to his spouse under the scheme of another Member State when that latter pension does not increase the couple's total income.
Unofficial document for media use, not binding on the Court of Justice. Available in English, French and Dutch
For the full text of the judgment, please consult our Internet site www.curia.eu.int at about 3 p.m. today
For further information, please contact Fionnuala Connolly, Tel: (00 352) 4303 3355 Fax: (00 352) 4303 2731