Benefits - 1970- 1979

The case shown here are derived from the lawindexpro case law database. lawindexpro is a low cost case law database, with over 260,000 case listings, and over 200,000 links to full text judgments. The free service below shows the core information on the case, but is restricted in several ways. A small proportion of cases do allow access to the full lawindexpro information. These cases are selected at random, and may be different on your next visit. The active links through to lawindexpro are extremely powerful allowing full access to all linked cases.  

This page lists 11 cases, and was prepared on 27 October 2012.

Gabrielle Defrenne -v- Belgian State C-80/70; R-80/70; [1971] EUECJ R-80/70; [1974] 1 CMLR 494; [1971] ECR 445
25 May 1971 ECJ	European, Discrimination, Benefits	Casemap 1 Citers
	Europa The concept of pay as defined in article 119 of the EEC Treaty does not include social security schemes or benefits directly governed by legislation without any element of agreement within the undertaking or the occupational branch concerned, which are obligatorily applicable to general categories of workers or which, within the framework of such a general system established by legislation, relate to certain categories of workers in particular. This applies especially to retirement pension schemes which give workers the benefit of a legal system, the financing of which, workers, employers and possibly the public authorities contribute in a measure determined less by the employment relationship between the employer and the worker than by considerations of social policy. The part due from the employer in the financing of such schemes does not constitute a direct or indirect payment to the worker; the latter receives the benefits legally prescribed solely by reason of the fact that he fulfils the legal conditions required for their being granted. Situations involving discrimination resulting from the application of such a scheme are not subject to the requirements of article 119.
	[ Europa ] - [ Bailii ]

(Un-named) [1972] UKSSCSC RA_1_1972
26 Jun 1972 SSCS	Benefits
	[ Bailii ]

(Un-named) [1974] UKSSCSC RI_14_1974
8 Oct 1974 SSCS	Benefits
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- Preston Supplementary Benefits Appeal Tribunal, Ex parte Moore [1975] 1 WLR 624
1975 CA Lord Denning MR	Benefits, Judicial Review
	Lord Denning MR observed that the courts should leave the tribunals to interpret the Supplementary Benefits Act in a broad reasonable way, according to the spirit and not the letter. To uphold the purposes of judicial review the "record is generously interpreted".

Müller -v- Austria 5849/72; (1975) 3 DR 25
1975 ECHR	Human Rights, Benefits	Casemap
	Article 1 does not guarantee a right to a pension of any particular amount, but that the right safeguarded by Article 1 consists, at most, "in being entitled as a beneficiary of the social insurance scheme to any payments made by the fund." A claim to contributory benefits was a "possession" by analogy with the proprietary right of a contributor to a private pension fund.

(Un-named) [1975] UKSSCSC RI_12_1975
12 Aug 1975 SSCS	Benefits
	Link[s] omitted

Brack -v- Insurance Officer C-17/76
29 Sep 1976 ECJ	European, Benefits, Employment
	Europa The provision in paragraph 1 of point I (United Kingdom) of annex V to Regulation no 1408/71, far from restricting the definition of the term 'worker' as it emerges from clarify the scope of subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph vis-a-vis British legislation. A person who:- was compulsorily insured against the contingency of ' sickness ' successively as an employed person and as a self-employed person under a social security scheme for the whole working population; - was a self-employed person when this contingency occurred; - at the said time and under the provisions of the said scheme, nevertheless could have claimed sickness benefits in cash at the full rate only if there were taken into account both the contributions paid by him or on his behalf when he was an employed person and those which he made as a self-employed person; constitutes, as regards british legislation, a 'worker' within the meaning of article 1(a)(ii) of regulation no 1408/71 for the purposes of the application of the first sentence of article 22(1)(ii) of that regulation.
	Link[s] omitted

HOAGM Perenboom -v- Inspecteur der directe belastingen of Nijmegen C-102/76
5 May 1977 ECJ	European, Benefits
	Europa Both article 12 of regulation no 3 and article 13 of regulation no 1408/71 prevent the state of residence from requiring payment, under its social legislation, of contributions on the remuneration received by a worker in respect of work performed in another member state and therefore subject to the social legislation of that state.
	Link[s] omitted

Regina -v- A National Insurance Commissioner, ex parte Christine Margaret Warry C-41/77
9 Nov 1977 ECJ	European, Benefits
	Link[s] omitted

Patrick Christopher Kenny -v- Insurance Officer C-1/78
28 Jun 1978 ECJ	European, Benefits
	Link[s] omitted

Directeur régional de la Sécurité sociale de Nancy v Paulin Gillard et Caisse régionale d'assurance maladie du Nord-Est, Nancy C-9/78
6 Jul 1978 ECJ	European, Benefits
	Europa The fact that a provision creating benefits for victims of war or its consequences is inserted in national social security legislation is not by itself decisive in determining that the benefit referred to in the above-mentioned provision is a social security benefit within the meaning of regulation no 1408/71, as the distinction between benefits which are excluded from the field of application of that regulation and benefits which come within it rests entirely on the factors relating to each benefit, in particular its purposes and the conditions for its grant. Article 4 (4) of regulation no 1408/71 must be interpreted as meaning that the regulation does not apply to benefits for former prisoners of war consisting in the grant, to workers who prove that they underwent a long period of captivity, of an advanced old-age pension, the essential purpose of such benefits being to provide for former prisoners of war testimony of national gratitude for the hardships endured between 1939 and 1945 on behalf of France and its allies and thus granting them, by the provision of a social benefit, a quid pro quo for the services rendered to those states.
	Link[s] omitted