Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 9 February 2018 — Sociale Verzekeringsbank; other party: C.E. Franzen

(Case C-96/18)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Sociale Verzekeringsbank (Svb)

Other party: C.E. Franzen

Questions referred

Must Articles 45 TFEU and 48 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that, in a case such as that at issue here, those provisions preclude a national rule such as Article 6a, introductory sentence and (b), of the AKW? ¹ That rule means that a resident of the Netherlands is not insured for purposes of the social security scheme of that State of residence if that resident works in another Member State and is subject to the social security legislation of the State of employment on the basis of Article 13 of Regulation No 1408/71. ² The present case is characterised by the fact that, on the basis of the legislation of the State of employment, the interested party does not qualify for child benefit because of the limited scope of her work there?

For the purpose of the answer to Question 1, is it significant that the possibility existed for the interested party to request the Svb to conclude an agreement as referred to in Article 17 of Regulation No 1408/71?

____________

¹     General Law on Child Benefits.

²     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 (OJ English Special Edition 1971(II), p 416).