Consideration of the questions referred The first question 35 By its first question , the referring court asks essentially whether Article 5 ( 1 ) of Regulation No 987 / 2009 , read together with Article 19 ( 2 ) thereof , must be interpreted as meaning that an A1 certificate issued by the competent institution of a Member State under Article 12 ( 1 ) of Regulation No 883 / 2004 is binding not only on the institutions of the Member State in which that activity is carried out , but also on the courts of that Member State . 36 It should be stated from the outset that , according to Article 19 ( 2 ) of Regulation No 987 / 2009 , the competent institution of the Member State whose legislation is applicable pursuant to Title II of Regulation No 883 / 2004 , which includes Article 12 ( 1 ) , is to provide an attestation that such legislation is applicable and indicate , where appropriate , until what date and under what conditions . 37 Article 5 ( 1 ) of that regulation provides that documents issued by the institution of a Member State and showing the position of a person for the purposes of the application of Regulations Nos 883 / 2004 and 987 / 2009 , and supporting evidence on the basis of which the documents have been issued , are to be accepted by the institutions of the other Member States for as long as they have not been withdrawn or declared to be invalid by the Member State in which they were issued . 38 It is true , as the referring court observes , that that provision states that the documents referred to therein are binding on the ‘ institutions ’ of Member States other than the Member State in which they were issued , without expressly mentioning the courts of those other Member States . 39 However , that provision also states that such documents are to be accepted ‘ for as long as they have not been withdrawn or declared invalid by the Member State in which they were issued ’ , which suggests that , in principle , only the authorities and courts of the issuing Member State may , where appropriate , withdraw or declare the A1 certificates invalid . 40 That interpretation is supported by the legislative history of Article 5 ( 1 ) of Regulation No 987 / 2009 and the context in which it is situated . 41 In particular , as regards the E 101 certificate , which preceded the A1 certificate , the Court has already held that the binding nature of the first certificate issued by the competent institution of a Member State , in accordance with Article 12a ( 1a ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 574 / 72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation No 1408 / 71 ( OJ , English Special Edition 1972 ( I ) , p . 160 ) , binds both the institutions and the courts of the Member State in which the activity is carried out ( see , to that effect , judgments of 26 January 2006 , Herbosch Kiere , C ‑ 2 / 05 , EU : C : 2006 : 69 , paragraphs 30 to 32 , and of 27 April 2017 , A-Rosa Flussschiff , C ‑ 620 / 15 , EU : C : 2017 : 309 , paragraph 51 ) . 42 Recital 12 of Regulation No 987 / 2009 provides , in particular , that the measures and procedures laid down by that regulation ‘ are the result of the case-law of the [ Court ] , the decisions of the Administrative Commission and the experience of more than 30 years of application of the coordination of social security systems in the context of the fundamental freedoms enshrined in the Treaty ’ . 43 Similarly , the Court has already held that Regulation No 987 / 2009 codified the Court ’ s case-law , affirming the binding nature of the E 101 certificate and the exclusive competence of the issuing institution to assess the validity of that certificate , and expressly reproducing the procedure as a means of resolving disputes concerning both the accuracy of documents drawn up by the competent institution of a Member State and the determination of the legislation applicable to the worker concerned ( judgment of 27 April 2017 , A-Rosa Flusschiff , C ‑ 620 / 15 , EU : C : 2017 : 309 , paragraph 59 , and order of 24 October 2017 , BeluBienstleistung and Nikless , C ‑ 474 / 16 , not published , EU : C : 2017 : 812 , paragraph 19 ) . 44 It follows that , if , when Regulation No 987 / 2009 was adopted , the EU legislature wished to depart from the earlier case-law in that regard so that the courts of the Member State in which the activity is carried out are not bound by the A1 certificates issued in another Member State , it could have expressly provided for that . 45 Furthermore , as the Advocate General observed in point 35 of his Opinion , the considerations underlying the case-law of the Court relating to the binding effect of the E 101 certificates are as valid in the context of Regulations Nos 883 / 2004 and 987 / 2009 .