Key facts of the case:
The appellant was born in Surinam In 1951. As from 15 October 1972 he has lived in The Netherlands. The Social Insurance Bank sent him a survey of the pension he had accumulated on 8 January 2009. It was indicated that the appellant had not been insured for old age pension (Algemene Ouderdomswet) from 2 March 1966 up to and including 14 October 1972, because he lived in Surinam at the time and did not reside in The Kingdom of the Netherlands. The appellant appealed to the Disctrict Court against this decision, alleging that the term Kingdom of the Netherlands should be interpreted in such a way, that it includes Surinam. The District Court dismissed the appeal. The appellant relied on articles 25 and 34 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights., among other things. The Administrative High Court now judges that the appellant’s reliance on the EU Charter fails, because there is no situation in which the law of the European Union is implemented (Article 51 of the Charter). Dismissal of the case. Question raised: is the law of the European Union implemented when denying someone the benefits of a pension scheme when he lived in Surinam and not in the European part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands?
The appellant’s reliance on the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights fails, now that there is no situation in which the law of the Union is executed (Article 51 of the Charter).