The Court of Justice of the European Union (the "Court") has recently delivered a preliminary ruling in Case C-717/24, BD v Sociálna poisťovňa (Slovakia) on the interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (the "Regulation"). The ruling does not change the EU's social security coordination rules, but it does answer an important practical question: what happens when a worker has built up a career across different Member States and later seeks to rely on pension rights linked to a particular occupation? The Court's answer is clear: when assessing pension rights linked to a particular occupation, periods of equivalent work completed elsewhere in the EU cannot simply be ignored.
Background to the dispute
The case originates in Slovakia and concerns BD, who spent part of his working life employed as an underground miner. This type of work is recognised under Slovak pension legislation as particularly demanding and is therefore linked to more favourable retirement conditions, reflecting the physical strain, risk, and long-term impact associated with such occupations. As in many Member States, these occupational advantages are designed to recognise sustained work in roles that are more arduous than standard employment and to adjust pension entitlement accordingly.
BD's career, however, was not confined to a single Member State. Alongside his employment in Slovakia, he also completed a period of work in another EU country, and it was this cross-border element that ultimately became decisive. When he later applied for the more favourable pension treatment linked to his occupational history, the Slovak social security institution refused to take account of the periods completed abroad. Those periods were excluded on the basis that they had not been completed under Slovak legislation, with the result that only domestic employment was considered when assessing whether he met the conditions for the occupational pension advantage. This approach placed him in a less favourable position than workers who had performed the same type of work entirely within Slovakia.
The EU legal framework: how Regulation 883/2004 fits together
The dispute sits within the broader coordination structure established by the Regulation, which is built on three key principles that are particularly relevant to this case. First, Article 6 of the Regulation requires Member States to take into account insurance, employment and residence periods completed under the legislation of other Member States when determining entitlement to benefits. This is the cornerstone of EU coordination and ensures that workers do not lose social security rights simply because their careers are spread across more than one country.
Second, the Regulation distinguishes between ordinary aggregation rules and more specific rules dealing with occupational or special categories of work. It is here that Article 51(1) of the Regulation becomes relevant. The latter article applies where entitlement to a benefit depends on having completed periods in a particular occupation or under specific working conditions. In practical terms, Article 51(1) of the Regulation is intended to ensure that workers do not lose special pension rights attached to a particular occupation simply because part of that work was carried out in another Member State. For example, if a national pension system gives favourable treatment to seafarers or other workers in particularly demanding occupations, those advantages should not disappear merely because part of the worker's career was spent abroad.
Finally, Regulation 883/2004 coordinates national social security systems rather than replacing them. Member States remain free to design their own pension schemes and determine the conditions for entitlement. However, when those rules affect people who have worked in more than one Member State, they must be applied in a manner that respects the coordination principles established by EU law.
Against that background, the national court asked whether Article 51(1) of the Regulation applies only where a Member State has created a formally separate occupational scheme, or whether it also applies where occupational advantages are embedded within a general pension system. In other words, the Court was asked whether the scope of EU protection depends on the form of national legislation or on its substance.
Substance over structure in EU coordination law
The Court focused on the substance and effect of the national rules rather than their formal classification. It rejected any interpretation of Article 51(1) of the Regulation that would make its application dependent on whether a Member State has created a separate occupational pension scheme. Instead, the decisive factor was whether national legislation grants more favourable pension treatment because a person has worked in a particular category of employment.
On that basis, the Court emphasised that the effectiveness of Regulation 883/2004 would be undermined if Member States could avoid its application through structural choices in their pension systems. If occupational advantages could be shielded from coordination simply by embedding them within general schemes rather than separating them into distinct regimes, the practical value of EU coordination would vary significantly between Member States. The Court therefore confirmed that what matters is the function of the rule, not its institutional design.
Free movement and the practical implications
Although the case is decided within the framework of Regulation 883/2004, the Court's reasoning is closely aligned with the Treaty principles on free movement of workers under Articles 45 and 48 TFEU. The underlying concern is to ensure that workers are not discouraged from exercising their right to move between Member States by the risk of losing social security advantages linked to their occupational history.
If occupational pension benefits were strictly limited to domestic periods of employment, workers who have pursued cross-border careers would systematically risk receiving less favourable treatment than those with identical careers completed in a single Member State. The Court has consistently rejected interpretations of EU social security law that produce such outcomes, and the judgment in BD follows that established line of reasoning.
From a practical perspective, the ruling confirms that national authorities must carry out a substantive assessment when dealing with occupational pension advantages in cross-border cases. Periods of employment completed in another Member State cannot be excluded purely on territorial grounds; instead, authorities must assess whether the work performed abroad is comparable in substance to the relevant domestic occupational category. This inevitably requires careful factual analysis, particularly where job classifications differ between national systems.
Conclusion
The ruling in BD v Sociálna poisťovňa is not a groundbreaking development in EU social security law, but it is a useful reminder of one of the core objectives underpinning Regulation 883/2004: ensuring that workers are not disadvantaged simply because their careers span more than one Member State. In an increasingly mobile labour market, where workers frequently build up employment histories across several jurisdictions, the effectiveness of social security coordination depends on national authorities looking beyond borders when assessing entitlement to benefits. The judgment also confirms that the application of Article 51(1) of the Regulation depends on the nature of the pension advantage in question rather than the way a Member State has chosen to organise its pension system.
For workers, the practical significance of the ruling is straightforward. A career that spans several Member States should be assessed as a whole when determining entitlement to occupationally linked pension advantages. For pension authorities and practitioners, the ruling serves as a reminder that the coordination rules are intended to reflect the reality of modern working lives, where careers increasingly extend beyond national borders. Ultimately, a worker's pension rights should reflect the work they have actually performed, rather than the countries in which that work happened to take place.
Disclaimer: This law report has been compiled by Ganado Advocates, who were not in any way involved as legal advisor for the parties in the judgement being covered in this law report. This report is for informational purposes only and does not contain or convey legal advice. The information contained in this report should not be used or relied upon in regard to any particular facts or circumstances without first obtaining legal advice.
Nigel Vella Micallef is an Associate within Ganado Advocates