The Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court) has delivered its judgment in Case C-7/24, Deutsche Rentenversicherung Nord and BG Verkehr v Gjensidige Forsikring A/S and Marius Pedersen A/S on 12 June 2025 in a case referred to it by the Svendborg District Court (Retten i Svendborg).
In its judgment, the Court held that strict equivalence between benefits is not required for recoupment under Article 85(1) of the Social Security Coordination Regulation (Regulation 883/2004). Instead, it is sufficient that the benefits provided by the Member States involved are “sufficiently comparable” in their subject matter and purpose. This interpretation ensures that institutions can seek reimbursement for survivor benefits paid under national law, even if national law in another Member State does not offer an identical benefit.
Background and Facts
Person X was injured in an industrial accident while working for a German company, DS Transport GmbH, at a Marius Pedersen A/S site in Denmark. He died shortly afterwards.
Following the accident and the death of X, Danish authorities determined that X’s widow was not entitled to benefits under Danish law, as X was covered by the German social security system. X, the deceased employee, was insured with BG Verkehr and Deutsche Rentenversicherung Nord, which paid benefits to the widow after X’s death.
Consequently, BG Verkehr and Deutsche Rentenversicherung Nord paid benefits to Y, and sought recoupment from Marius Pedersen and its insurer, Gjensidige Forsikring. However, Marius Pedersen and Gjensidige Forsikring refused the recoupment claims, arguing that Danish law does not provide for such recoupment, and that the widow, Y, had already received compensation under Danish law.
Reference for a preliminary ruling
Therefore, the case involves the insurance company Gjensidige Forsikring, acting on behalf of Marius Pedersen, and its liability for recoupment claims made by the German public-law pension insurance undertakings, BG Verkehr and Deutsche Rentenversicherung Nord, following the death of X.
The referring national court, the Svendborg District Court (Retten i Svendborg), asked a question under Article 85(1) of Regulation 883/2004 (the Social Security Coordination Regulation). That provision (right of instituions) states:
‘If a person receives benefits under the legislation of one Member State in respect of an injury resulting from events occurring in another Member State, any rights of the institution responsible for providing benefits against a third party liable to provide compensation for the injury shall be governed by the following rules:
(a) where the institution responsible for providing benefits is, under the legislation it applies, subrogated to the rights which the beneficiary has against the third party, such subrogation shall be recognised by each Member State;
(b) where the institution responsible for providing benefits has a direct right against the third party, each Member State shall recognise such rights.‘
This provision allows social security institutions to seek recoupment from liable third parties in cross-border cases.
The question that the referring national court had was:
‘Must Article 85(1) of [the Social Security Coordination Regulation] be interpreted as meaning that for the obliged institution to have a right of recoupment under that provision there must be a lawful basis in the Member State in which the injury occurred for the type of damages or compensation for which a right of recoupment is claimed, or equivalent benefit, as a consequence of the event for which the party responsible for the injury is liable for damages under the law of the place where the injury occurred?’
Arguments of the parties
Deutsche Rentenversicherung Nord and BG Verkehr (a statutory pension insurance system and the statutory accident insurance institution in Germany) argue that their right to recoupment should be determined under German law, as they are subrogated to Y’s rights. They contend that Danish law should not preclude their claims, as the benefits paid to the widow, Y, were mandated by German law.
Marius Pedersen A/S and Gjensidige Forsikring counter that, arguing that the recoupment claims must be assessed under Danish law, which does not recognise such claims for social security benefits. They argue that the benefits paid to the widow, Y, under German law, do not correspond to any claims she could have under Danish law, and thus, the recoupment claims are invalid. They also assert that the compensation paid to Y under Danish law fully discharged their liabilities.
Judgment of the Court
Article 85(1) of the Social Security Coordination provides that if a person receives benefits under the legislation of one Member State due to an injury occurring in another, the institution responsible for those benefits may be subrogated to the injured party’s rights or have a direct right of action against the liable third party. The provision ensures that institutions can recover costs between Member States.
The Court emphasized that Article 85(1) functions as a conflict-of-laws rule, meaning that the law of the Member State where the institution is based governs the existence and scope of subrogation rights. In this case, German law applied to determine whether Deutsche Rentenversicherung Nord and BG Verkehr had a right of subrogation.
The Court therefore rejected the argument that national law in Denmark could limit the subrogation rights of institutions in Germany. Specifically, provisions of national law in Denmark that prohibit recoupment actions based on social benefits could not override the rights granted under then national law of Germany, recognised by Article 85(1) of the social Security Coordination Regulation. However, the Court also clarified that subrogation cannot create new or additional rights beyond those available to the injured party under the law of the Member State where the injury occurred. In other words, the institutions in Germany could only claim what the widow herself could have claimed under the national law of Denmark.
The Court had to grapple with whether the widow’s pension received in Germany was sufficiently comparable to the compensation for loss of a provider in Denmark. The Court held that strict equivalence is not required, but instead, it is sufficient that the benefits are ‘sufficiently comparable’ in subject matter and purpose. In this case, both the widow’s pension in Germany and the compensation aimed to support surviving spouses after the death of a provider in Denmark served similar functions, in that they were compensating for lost income and providing financial stability. Therefore, the Court found them sufficiently comparable for the purposes of Article 85(1) of the Social Security Coordination Regulation.
In all therefore, the Court concluded that Article 85(1) of the Social Security Coordination Regulation does not require the existence of an identical or equivalent benefit in the Member State where the injury occurred. Instead, it is enough that the benefits are sufficiently comparable in purpose and subject matter. In legal terms, the operative part of the judgment read:
‘Article 85(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems must be interpreted as meaning that, where a person, under the legislation of the Member State in which he or she is resident, receives a widow’s or widower’s pension following the death of his or her spouse as a result of an accident at work which occurred in the territory of another Member State, and the legislation of the first Member State provides, with respect to the institution responsible for paying that pension, for a right of subrogation against a third party liable to provide compensation for the injury resulting from that accident at work, the recoupment action of that institution is not subject to the existence, in the second Member State, of a legal basis allowing such a pension or equivalent benefit to be obtained, in so far as it is sufficient that the benefits provided for following a trigger event, such as an accident at work, by the legislation of the Member States concerned are sufficiently comparable as regards their respective subject matter and purposes for the right of subrogation provided for by the legislation of the first Member State and referred to in Article 85(1) to be extended to the benefit provided for by the second Member State.’
Read the judgment
The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-7/24, Deutsche Rentenversicherung Nord and BG Verkehr v Gjensidige Forsikring A/S and Marius Pedersen A/S, referred to it by the Svendborg District Court (Retten i Svendborg) can be read here.