Luxembourg / Constitutional Court / 194/25

Person 1 and the National Health Fund (Caisse Nationale de Santé)
Deciding body type
National Court/Tribunal
Deciding body
Constitutional Court
Type
Decision
Decision date
17/01/2025
  • Luxembourg / Constitutional Court / 194/25

    Key facts of the case:

    X applied to the National Health Fund for maternity allowance. At the time of the application, she had been affiliated with the Social Security as an employee for less than six months and was prohibited from working under Articles L-332-21 and L-332-2 of the Labour Code (Code du Travail). This prohibition  applies to all pregnant women in the weeks prior to birth. In August 2021, the National Health Fund refused to pay maternity allowance on the grounds that X failed to fulfil the condition set out in Article 25 of the Social Security Code (Code de la Sécurité Sociale). This provision requires a minimum of six-month mandatory affiliation with the Social Security during the year preceding maternity leave. X appealed requesting the Social Security Arbitration Board (Conseil arbitral de la sécurité sociale) to revise the decision . She argued, among others, the incompatibility of Article 25 with the Charter and the Luxembourgish ConstitutionIn June 2024, the Social Security Arbitration Board admitted the appeal, stayed the proceedings and referred two questions to the Constitutional Court for a preliminary ruling on the constitutionality of Article 25 of the Social Security Code.

    Key legal question raised by the court:

    The key legal question raised is whether, considering the primacy of the Charter over the Luxembourgish Constitution, a request for a preliminary ruling on the constitutionality of national provisions that may also infringe on the Charter may be admitted by the Constitutional Court prior to an assessment of an infringement of the Charter.

    Outcome of the case:

    The Court first noted that during the proceedings before the Social Security Arbitration Board, X had raised the possible incompatibility of Article 25 among others with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

    The Court recalled that, according to the provisions of the Act of 27 July 1997, the questions referred to it must be necessary for the referring court to give its judgment. In the light of the principle of the primacy of EU law, the effectiveness of the preliminary rulings on constitutionality referred to the Court was therefore subject to the prior verification of the provision’s compliance with EU law, in this case the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The Court then noted that  the Social Security Arbitration Board had failed to do that in its judgement.

    The Constitutional Court therefore held that the preliminary questions regarding compliance with the Constitution were inadmissible for being premature.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    It follows from the judgment making reference for a preliminary ruling and the conclusions of X that the latter also raised the question of the compatibility of Article 25 of the Social Security Code with Articles 21 and 33 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union ....

    Due to the principle of the primacy of European Union law, the practical effect of preliminary rulings on constitutionality currently referred to the Court is subject, in particular, to prior verification of the law's compliance with European Union law.

    Since the referring court raised the question of the compatibility of Article 25 of the Social Security Code with European Union law in its judgment, it was incumbent upon it to examine that point first …

    It follows that the preliminary questions of compatibility with the Constitution are inadmissible because they are premature.

  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter (original language)

    Il résulte du jugement de renvoi préjudiciel, ainsi que des conclusions de PERSONNE1.), que celle-ci avait également soulevé la question de la conformité de l’article 25 du Code de la sécurité sociale aux articles 21 et 33 de la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne […]

    En raison du principe de primauté du droit de l’Union européenne, l’effet utile des questions préjudicielles de constitutionnalité actuellement déférées à la Cour est notamment conditionné, en amont, par la vérification de la conformité de la loi au droit de l’Union européenne.

    La juridiction de renvoi ayant soulevé la question de la conformité de l’article 25 du Code de la sécurité sociale au droit de l’Union européenne dans son jugement, il lui appartenait d’instruire ce point au préalable […]

    Il s’ensuit que les questions préjudicielles de conformité à la Constitution sont irrecevables pour être prématurées.