Available languages

Taxonomy tags

Info

References in this case

Share

Highlight in text

Go

21.5.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/13

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie (Republic of Poland) lodged on 2 March 2011 — Format Urządzenia i Montaże Przemysłowe v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych I Oddział w Warszawie

(Case C-115/11)

2011/C 152/23

Language of the case: Polish

Referring court

Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Format Urządzenia i Montaże Przemysłowe

Defendant: Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych I Oddział w Warszawie

Questions referred

1.

Does the fact that the personal scope of the first sentence of Article 14(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (1) covers ‘a person normally employed in the territory of two or more Member States’ — in respect of whom it is specified in Article 14(2)(b) that this is a person other than that referred to in Article 14(2)(a) — mean, in the case of an employed person who is employed in an employment relationship by a single employer,

(a)

that he is to be considered such a person if, on account of the nature of the employment, he performs work in different Member States at the same time (simultaneously), which also includes relatively short periods of time, and therefore frequently crosses State borders,

and also

(b)

that he is to be considered such a person too if in the context of a single employment relationship he is obliged to perform work permanently (normally) in several Member States, including the State in which he resides, or in several Member States other than that of his State of residence — either irrespective of the length of the consecutive periods in which he performs his obligations in the individual Member States and the length of the intermissions between them, or with a temporal limit?

2.

If the interpretation set out in (b) above is accepted, can Article 14(2)(b)(ii) of Regulation No 1408/71 be applied in a situation in which the obligation existing in the context of the employment relationship between the employee and a single employer to permanently perform work in several Member States covers performance of obligations in the Member State in which the employee resides even though such a situation — the performance of work in that very State — appears to be precluded at the time that the employment relationship is entered into and, in the event of the answer being in the negative, can Article 14(2)(b)(i) of Regulation No 1408/71 be applied?

(1)  OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416