In September 2024, the National Insurance Court of Norway (Trygderetten) has delivered its judgment in Case TRR-2021-1525, after the case returned to it after it had sent a request for an advisory opinion of the EFTA Court in Case E-3/23, A v NAV.
In its judgment, the National Insurance Court ruled that a person was entitled to a minimum annual disability benefit, considering all insurance periods, including those outside of Norway in the wider EEA.
Additionally, the National Insurance Court determined that a person’s degree of disability was 100%, not 80%, and was thus entitled to a supplementary guarantee under Article 58 of the Social Security Coordination Regulation (Regulation 2004/883).
Background and facts
The case concerns disability benefits and the application of EEA secondary law.
The case involves a Norwegian national (A), who resided in Ireland, and later applied for invalidity benefits in Norway. The Norwegian Labour and Welfare Directorate (NAV) initially granted A an invalidity benefit with an 80% degree of invalidity, but calculated the benefit based on Norwegian law. NAV calculated his benefit based on Norwegian and Irish insurance periods, resulting in a lower amount than A expected.
The applicant contested this decision, arguing for a 100% invalidity degree and a higher benefit under Article 58 of the Social Security Coordination Regulation (Regulation 2004/883). A argued that the minimum annual benefit under Norwegian law should be considered a “minimum benefit” under Article 58, which NAV disputed, stating that the benefit is part of the usual social security rules and not a guaranteed minimum.
The Regulation distinguishes between “type A” and “type B” legislation, with the latter being relevant in this case as Norwegian invalidity benefits depend on the duration of insurance periods.
The case primarily questions whether the appellant was entitled to a supplementary guarantee under Article 58 of the Social Security Coordination Regulation (Regulation 883/2004) given that the pro-rata benefit was lower than the minimum annual benefit stipulated in Norwegian law.
The case was referred to the EFTA Court for an advisory opinion under Article 34 SCA.
Judgment of the EFTA Court
The EFTA Court delivered its judgment in Case E-3/23, A v NAV in April 2024.
In its judgment, the EFTA Court emphasised that the Regulation aims to prevent disadvantages for individuals who have exercised their right to free movement within the EEA. Given this backdrop, it addressed the interpretation of Article 58 of the Regulation concerning the coordination of social security systems, specifically regarding minimum benefits and invalidity benefits.
The EFTA Court was of the position that Article 58 of the Regulation ensures that recipients of benefits are not provided with less than the minimum benefit fixed by national legislation for all periods of insurance or residence. The interpretation was thus that Article 58 of the Regulation guarantees a benefit level equivalent to what the person would receive as a minimum benefit, if all periods considered under Article 52 of the Regulation were spent in the state of residence.
It also stated the purpose of the benefit, noting that the reduction of the benefit due to shorter insurance periods than 40 years, does not prevent it from being considered a minimum benefit under the Regulation.
Thus, a national benefit, even if subject to proportional reduction based on insurance periods, can still constitute a minimum benefit under Article 58 of the Regulation, if it guarantees a minimum income exceeding what is claimable solely based on insurance periods and contributions.
In other words, NAV must take into account all periods of insurance, including those in states that have denied benefits (e.g., in this case, Ireland). Thus, for the EFTA Court, A was entitled to an unabridged minimum annual benefit for disability benefits.
Judgment of the National Insurance Court
Following the case’s return to the national court, the National Insurance Court followed the EFTA Court. A number of aspects of the judgment are worth pointing out.
First, the national court determined that A was entitled to the minimum annual benefit for disability. This decision was based on the interpretation that the minimum annual benefit, which must be interpreted as a minimum benefit under Article 58 of the Regulation.
Second, the national court found that A’s disability benefits should be calculated to ensure they are not lower than the minimum annual benefit level, taking into account all periods of insurance, including those in Ireland which denied benefits to A. This meant the A was entitled to an unabridged minimum annual benefit for disability benefits, based on 40 years of insurance periods.
Third, it found that the A degree of disability was 100%, not the 80%, as was initially determined by NAV. This, for the national court, was based on a thorough review of the evidence, which sufficiently demonstrated that A could be considered fully disabled.
Fourth, it decided that the A was entitled to a supplementary guarantee under Article 58 of the Regulation. This supplementary guarantee ensures that A’s total benefits were not lower than the minimum annual benefit level stipulated in Norwegian law.
Fifth, and finally, the national court stated that the denial of benefits by another EEA states (in this case, an EU Member State, Ireland) was irrelevant. Periods of insurance in EEA states that have denied benefits must still be considered to support a claim for minimum benefits from the country of residence, which in this case, was Norway.
Analysis
The judgment of the National Insurance Court in Case E-3/23, A v NAV affirmed the person’s right to a minimum annual benefit for disability benefits under Article 58 of the Social Security Coordination Regulation, taking into account all periods of insurance, including those in EEA states that have denied benefits.
Read the judgment
The judgment of the National Insurance Court of Norway (Trygderetten) in Case TRR-2021-1525, delivered in September 2024, which followed the EFTA Court’s judgment in Case E-3/23, A v NAV, can be read here.