SOCIAL SECURITY CASE LAW
1) Aldewereld (Case C-60/93)
- Posting to non-EU state
2) Rheinhold (Case C-327/92)
- Interpretation of Art. 3 Reg. 883/2004 + liability of main-contractor
3) De Jaek (Case C-340/94)
- Interpretation of ‘employer’ and ‘self-employed’
4) Fitzwilliam (Case C-202/97)
- Art. 12 Reg. 883/2004: ‘Relationship between employer and MS of establishment’ + A1 form
5) Banks (Case C-178/97)
- A1 form: retroactive effect, binding, work covered under Art.14
6) Kiere (Case C-2/05)
- A1 form: binding, host state not allowed to scrutinise validity
7) Derouin (Case C-103/06)
- Relationship between Reg. 883/2004 and Tax Treaties
8) Altun (Case C-359/16)
- A1 form: abuse of law principle, disregarding A1 form, judicial proceedings
ECJ: DIRECT TAXATION CASE LAW
1) Schumacker (Case C-279/93)
- Equal treatment when deriving income entirely or almost exclusively in host MS
2) Renneberg (Case C-527/06)
- Equal treatment when deriving income entirely or almost exclusively in host MS
3) Kieback (Case C-9/14)
- No account of personal circumstances, if income is not major part of taxable income
4) X case (Case C-283/15)
5) AFMB Opinion (Case C-610/18)
- SEEfile:///C:/Users/spara/Desktop/LLM/My%20notes/Period%204/CBTHC/Case%20law/
Advocate%20General%E2%80%99s%20Opinion%20in%20Case%20C-610-18.pdf
6) Gerritse (Case C-234/01)
- Non-residents tax rate in comparison to domestic progressive tax table
7) Scorpio (Case C-290/04)
- Compatibility of domesic law with EU freedoms
ECJ: PRINCIPLE OF SUBSIDIARITY CASE LAW
1) Asscher (Case C-107/94)
2) Gilly (Case C-336/96)
3) Gschwind (Case C-391/97)
4) Zurstrassen (Case C-87/99)
5) Gielen (Case C-440/08)
6) Sopora (Case C-512/13)
,SOCIAL SECURITY CASE LAW
1) Aldewereld (Case C-60/93)
Facts
- §3 Mr Aldewereld is a Netherlands national who was resident in the Netherlands when he took
a job with an undertaking established in Germany, which posted him immediately to Thailand,
where he worked during 1986.
- §4 Mr Aldewereld was liable in Germany to pay social security contributions
- §5 In respect of the same year, the Netherlands tax authority demanded from him as a
Netherlands resident mandatory contributions under Netherlands social insurance legislation
Preliminary question
- §8 Do the rules forming part of European Community law (…), and in particular the rules on
determining the national legislation applicable set out in Title II of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
of the Council of 14 June 1971, preclude the collection of contributions under the social
legislation of the State of residence from a person who resides in one Member State and, in the
employment of an undertaking established in another Member State, works exclusively outside
the Member States, on the basis of which employment he is liable to pay contributions under
the social legislation of the other Member State?'
Reasoning
- §14 the mere fact that the activities are carried out outside the Community is not sufficient to
exclude the application of the Community rules on the free movement of workers, as long as
the employment relationship retains a sufficiently close link with the Community. In a case such
as this, a link of that kind can be found in the fact that the Community worker was employed by
an undertaking from another Member State and, for that reason, was insured under the social
security scheme of that State.
- §15 The applicable legislation must therefore be determined on the basis of the tenor and the
aims of Title II of the regulation.
- §22 according to the scheme of the regulation, the application of the legislation of the Member
State in which the worker resides appears to be an ancillary rule which applies only where that
legislation has a link with the employment relationship. Accordingly, when the worker does not
reside in any of the Member States where he works, it is normally the legislation of the
Member State where his employer has its registered office or place of business.
- §24 In a case such as that in the main proceedings, the legislation of the Member State of the
worker's residence cannot be applied, since there is no factor connecting that legislation with
the employment relationship, unlike the legislation of the State where the employer is
established, which must therefore be applied.
- §25 It follows that, according to the scheme of the regulation, in the absence of a provision
dealing expressly with the case of a person in Mr Aldewereld's situation, such a person is
covered by the legislation of the Member State where his employer is established.
Decision
- §26 the rules of Community law which are designed to achieve freedom of movement for
workers within the Community, and in particular the rules on determining the national
legislation applicable set out in Title II of Regulation No 1408/71, preclude the collection of
contributions under the social legislation of the State of residence from a person who resides in
one Member State and, in the employment of an undertaking established in another Member
State, works exclusively outside the Member States, on the basis of which employment he is
liable to pay contributions under the social legislation of the other Member State.
, 2) Rheinhold (Case C-327/92)
Facts
- §3 During 1983 and 1984, Van Breugel Isolatie BV ("Van Breugel"), a company registered in the
Netherlands, carried out insulation work in Belgium as a subcontractor for Rheinhold, a Belgian
company.
- §4 In 1985, Van Breugel became insolvent as a result of financial difficulties. During the
liquidation it became apparent that it had not paid to the Bedrijfsvereniging, which is the
association responsible for collecting social security contributions in the business sector
covering Van Breugel, various contributions due in respect of work performed under the
subcontract by its workers who resided in the Netherlands. The total amount of unpaid
contributions was HFL 49 263.42.
- §5 On 30 December 1986, since Van Breugel' s assets were insufficient, the Bedrijfsvereniging
demanded payment of the contributions from Rheinhold
Preliminary question
- §13 In its first question, the national court asks whether Regulation No 1408/71 applies to
national legislation which, like the CwSV, coordinates the various branches of social security in
a Member State.
- §21 In its second question, therefore, the national court essentially asks whether provisions
which, like Article 16b(5) and Article 16b(8) of the CwSV, make a main contractor liable for
social security contributions not paid by a defaulting subcontractor fall within the scope of
Regulation No 1408/71, having regard to the purpose of Article 51 of the Treaty.
Reasoning
- §15 the national social security schemes are subject in their entirety to the application of the
rules of Community law.
- §17 In that respect, it is not significant that the CwSV does not appear in the declaration made
by the Netherlands State pursuant to Article 5 of Regulation No 1408/71.
- §18 The Court has held on several occasions that the fact that a State has not mentioned a law
in that declaration does not have the effect of excluding that law ipso facto from the scope of
Regulation No 1408/71
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- §23 the decisive factor is that there must be a link between the provision in question and the
legislation governing the branches of social security listed in Article 4 of Regulation No 1408/71,
and that link must be direct and sufficiently relevant.
- §30 In those circumstances, such third-party liability cannot be regarded as having a direct and
sufficiently relevant link with the scope of Regulation No 1408/71, as defined by Article 4 of
that regulation.
Decision
- §19 The answer to the first question must therefore be that Regulation No 1408/71 applies to
legislation which, like the CwSV, coordinates the various branches of social security in a
Member State.
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- §32 It follows, therefore, that provisions which, like Article 16b(5) and Article 16b(8) of the
CwSV, make a main contractor jointly and severally liable for unpaid contributions and advance
payments on account of contributions due from a subcontractor in relation to the activities of
workers used by him in the context of the said works do not fall within the scope of Regulation
No 1408/71.
1) Aldewereld (Case C-60/93)
- Posting to non-EU state
2) Rheinhold (Case C-327/92)
- Interpretation of Art. 3 Reg. 883/2004 + liability of main-contractor
3) De Jaek (Case C-340/94)
- Interpretation of ‘employer’ and ‘self-employed’
4) Fitzwilliam (Case C-202/97)
- Art. 12 Reg. 883/2004: ‘Relationship between employer and MS of establishment’ + A1 form
5) Banks (Case C-178/97)
- A1 form: retroactive effect, binding, work covered under Art.14
6) Kiere (Case C-2/05)
- A1 form: binding, host state not allowed to scrutinise validity
7) Derouin (Case C-103/06)
- Relationship between Reg. 883/2004 and Tax Treaties
8) Altun (Case C-359/16)
- A1 form: abuse of law principle, disregarding A1 form, judicial proceedings
ECJ: DIRECT TAXATION CASE LAW
1) Schumacker (Case C-279/93)
- Equal treatment when deriving income entirely or almost exclusively in host MS
2) Renneberg (Case C-527/06)
- Equal treatment when deriving income entirely or almost exclusively in host MS
3) Kieback (Case C-9/14)
- No account of personal circumstances, if income is not major part of taxable income
4) X case (Case C-283/15)
5) AFMB Opinion (Case C-610/18)
- SEEfile:///C:/Users/spara/Desktop/LLM/My%20notes/Period%204/CBTHC/Case%20law/
Advocate%20General%E2%80%99s%20Opinion%20in%20Case%20C-610-18.pdf
6) Gerritse (Case C-234/01)
- Non-residents tax rate in comparison to domestic progressive tax table
7) Scorpio (Case C-290/04)
- Compatibility of domesic law with EU freedoms
ECJ: PRINCIPLE OF SUBSIDIARITY CASE LAW
1) Asscher (Case C-107/94)
2) Gilly (Case C-336/96)
3) Gschwind (Case C-391/97)
4) Zurstrassen (Case C-87/99)
5) Gielen (Case C-440/08)
6) Sopora (Case C-512/13)
,SOCIAL SECURITY CASE LAW
1) Aldewereld (Case C-60/93)
Facts
- §3 Mr Aldewereld is a Netherlands national who was resident in the Netherlands when he took
a job with an undertaking established in Germany, which posted him immediately to Thailand,
where he worked during 1986.
- §4 Mr Aldewereld was liable in Germany to pay social security contributions
- §5 In respect of the same year, the Netherlands tax authority demanded from him as a
Netherlands resident mandatory contributions under Netherlands social insurance legislation
Preliminary question
- §8 Do the rules forming part of European Community law (…), and in particular the rules on
determining the national legislation applicable set out in Title II of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
of the Council of 14 June 1971, preclude the collection of contributions under the social
legislation of the State of residence from a person who resides in one Member State and, in the
employment of an undertaking established in another Member State, works exclusively outside
the Member States, on the basis of which employment he is liable to pay contributions under
the social legislation of the other Member State?'
Reasoning
- §14 the mere fact that the activities are carried out outside the Community is not sufficient to
exclude the application of the Community rules on the free movement of workers, as long as
the employment relationship retains a sufficiently close link with the Community. In a case such
as this, a link of that kind can be found in the fact that the Community worker was employed by
an undertaking from another Member State and, for that reason, was insured under the social
security scheme of that State.
- §15 The applicable legislation must therefore be determined on the basis of the tenor and the
aims of Title II of the regulation.
- §22 according to the scheme of the regulation, the application of the legislation of the Member
State in which the worker resides appears to be an ancillary rule which applies only where that
legislation has a link with the employment relationship. Accordingly, when the worker does not
reside in any of the Member States where he works, it is normally the legislation of the
Member State where his employer has its registered office or place of business.
- §24 In a case such as that in the main proceedings, the legislation of the Member State of the
worker's residence cannot be applied, since there is no factor connecting that legislation with
the employment relationship, unlike the legislation of the State where the employer is
established, which must therefore be applied.
- §25 It follows that, according to the scheme of the regulation, in the absence of a provision
dealing expressly with the case of a person in Mr Aldewereld's situation, such a person is
covered by the legislation of the Member State where his employer is established.
Decision
- §26 the rules of Community law which are designed to achieve freedom of movement for
workers within the Community, and in particular the rules on determining the national
legislation applicable set out in Title II of Regulation No 1408/71, preclude the collection of
contributions under the social legislation of the State of residence from a person who resides in
one Member State and, in the employment of an undertaking established in another Member
State, works exclusively outside the Member States, on the basis of which employment he is
liable to pay contributions under the social legislation of the other Member State.
, 2) Rheinhold (Case C-327/92)
Facts
- §3 During 1983 and 1984, Van Breugel Isolatie BV ("Van Breugel"), a company registered in the
Netherlands, carried out insulation work in Belgium as a subcontractor for Rheinhold, a Belgian
company.
- §4 In 1985, Van Breugel became insolvent as a result of financial difficulties. During the
liquidation it became apparent that it had not paid to the Bedrijfsvereniging, which is the
association responsible for collecting social security contributions in the business sector
covering Van Breugel, various contributions due in respect of work performed under the
subcontract by its workers who resided in the Netherlands. The total amount of unpaid
contributions was HFL 49 263.42.
- §5 On 30 December 1986, since Van Breugel' s assets were insufficient, the Bedrijfsvereniging
demanded payment of the contributions from Rheinhold
Preliminary question
- §13 In its first question, the national court asks whether Regulation No 1408/71 applies to
national legislation which, like the CwSV, coordinates the various branches of social security in
a Member State.
- §21 In its second question, therefore, the national court essentially asks whether provisions
which, like Article 16b(5) and Article 16b(8) of the CwSV, make a main contractor liable for
social security contributions not paid by a defaulting subcontractor fall within the scope of
Regulation No 1408/71, having regard to the purpose of Article 51 of the Treaty.
Reasoning
- §15 the national social security schemes are subject in their entirety to the application of the
rules of Community law.
- §17 In that respect, it is not significant that the CwSV does not appear in the declaration made
by the Netherlands State pursuant to Article 5 of Regulation No 1408/71.
- §18 The Court has held on several occasions that the fact that a State has not mentioned a law
in that declaration does not have the effect of excluding that law ipso facto from the scope of
Regulation No 1408/71
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- §23 the decisive factor is that there must be a link between the provision in question and the
legislation governing the branches of social security listed in Article 4 of Regulation No 1408/71,
and that link must be direct and sufficiently relevant.
- §30 In those circumstances, such third-party liability cannot be regarded as having a direct and
sufficiently relevant link with the scope of Regulation No 1408/71, as defined by Article 4 of
that regulation.
Decision
- §19 The answer to the first question must therefore be that Regulation No 1408/71 applies to
legislation which, like the CwSV, coordinates the various branches of social security in a
Member State.
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- §32 It follows, therefore, that provisions which, like Article 16b(5) and Article 16b(8) of the
CwSV, make a main contractor jointly and severally liable for unpaid contributions and advance
payments on account of contributions due from a subcontractor in relation to the activities of
workers used by him in the context of the said works do not fall within the scope of Regulation
No 1408/71.
