CYIL vol. 10 (2019)

CYIL 10 ȍ2019Ȏ INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL SECURITY COORDINATION TREATIES … the Court of Justice of the EU on the basis of the preliminary ruling mechanism (according to Art. 267 SFEU). The Czech administrative courts expressed their doubts about the EU legal conformity of the Czech compensatory allowances already in the past. As the European law and judicatory opinion prescribes, these questions have to be sufficiently concrete and with a direct connection to the real question that should be decided on in the judicial proceedings before Member State’s courts. 9 The Slovak representative considered these Czech questions to be hypothetical and unacceptable, but this view was not shared by the Luxembourg court. The Court of Justice 10 presented its interpretation which will be further commented upon. Obviously, the Court of Justice made a clear preference in favour of the general principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination which can be understood as the cornerstone of European integration, and therefore decided to disregard any special features of particular Member States’ bilateral relations. This means that the selected mode of interpretation is teleological and is based on the very fundamental values building European integration as a multilateral project that overrides bilateral ties. The opinion presented by the European Court is well understood when perceived as a manifestation of the will of a European institution whose principal aim is to support integration. We can ask whether the European Court managed to consider the above-explained particularities of the Czech and Slovak case or not. It can also be said that the classical European jurisprudence limited itself in the sense that the European courts are not allowed to interpret international treaties concluded by Member States which do not have a connection to EU law. 11 From another point of view, it can be said that the Court of Justice examined the case from today’s perspective of integrated Member States, among which the Czech and Slovak Republics present as two independent countries. The Czech Constitutional Court, on the other hand, emphasised the historical method of interpretation and pointed out that in the relevant period, it is not possible to consider the affected persons as working and gaining their insurance periods abroad because they were actually residing and working in one country. 12 The method of coordination of social security rights and claims is designed to solve international situations and is not intended to be used inside one state. Moreover, under the specific conditions set by the Czech-Slovak treaty, the contribution periods gained in the past by working for Slovak employers, were in fact considered twice, which is not possible under the system of coordination (which is based on the principle of single applicable legislation). According to some experts, 13 the Court of Justice of the EU should have declared that it lacked jurisdiction to solve the posed preliminary ruling questions because the affair is connected to internal situation within the borders of only one country (former Czechoslovakia) and it is not possible to apply social security coordination rules on such a case because coordination is designed to only solve cases in an international context. 9 See Judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU from 9 November 2010, Volker und Markus Schecke a Eifert , case C-92/09 and C-93/09. 10 See Judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU, from 22 June 2011, Landtová , case C-399/09. 11 See the Judgment of the European Court of Justice, Vandeweghe et al ., Case C-130/73, from 27 November 1973. 12 See the opinion of the Constitutional Court in File No. PL ÚS 57/12. 13 See PÍTROVÁ, Lenka. The Judgment of the Czech Constitutional Court in the “Slovak pensions” case and its possible consequences (in light of the fortiter in re suaviter in modo principle). The Lawyer Quarterly , No. 2/2013, p. 86-101, p. 91.

471