FranklinWillemen/mapa_plus huggingface dataset:
In those circumstances , the fact that the Hungarian Government has , at least in principle , indicated its agreement with the findings made by the Administrative Commission adds nothing to the relevance of that question for the resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings . 56 Furthermore , the fact that the Administrative Commission found that the A1 certificates at issue in the main proceedings should be withdrawn cannot , in itself , justify the inadmissibility of the present reference for a preliminary ruling , the latter concerning precisely whether that finding is liable to have consequences concerning the binding nature of those certificates with regard to the authorities and the courts of the Member State in which the activity is carried on . 57 In those circumstances , it cannot be held that the first part of the second question is hypothetical so that the presumption of relevance referred to in paragraph 51 of that judgment is reversed . – Substance 58 It must be recalled that , according to Article 72 of Regulation No 883 / 2004 , which sets out the duties of the Administrative Commission , the latter is responsible , inter alia , for dealing with any administrative questions or questions of interpretation deriving from the provisions of that regulation or those of Regulation No 987 / 2009 or any agreement or arrangement concluded within the framework of those regulations , without prejudice to the right of the authorities , institutions or interested parties to have recourse to the procedures and to the courts laid down in the legislation of the Member States , by Regulation No 883 / 2004 and by the Treaty . 59 According to Article 72 , the Administrative Commission is also responsible , first , for fostering and developing cooperation between Member States and their institutions in social security matters in order , inter alia , to take into account particular questions regarding certain categories of persons and , second , to facilitate realisation of actions of cross border cooperation activities in the area of the coordination of social security systems . 60 More specifically , as regards a situation such as that at issue in the main proceedings , in which a difference has arisen between the competent institution of one Member State and that of another Member State concerning the documents or evidence referred to in Article 5 ( 1 ) of Regulation No 987 / 2009 , paragraphs 2 to 4 thereof lay down a procedure for the purpose of resolving that difference of opinion .
In particular , paragraphs 2 and 3 of that article lay down the steps that the institutions concerned are required to follow in the case of doubt about the validity of a document or the accuracy of the facts on which the particulars contained therein are based .
Paragraph 4 of that article provides that where no agreement is reached between the institutions concerned , the matter may be brought before the Administrative Commission by the competent authorities which must ‘ endeavour to reconcile the points of view ’ within six months of the date on which the matter was brought before it . 61 As the Court has already held with regard to Regulation No 1408 / 71 , if the Administrative Commission does not succeed in reconciling the points of view of the competent institutions on the question of the legislation applicable , the Member State in which the employee concerned actually works may , without prejudice to any legal remedies existing in the Member State to which the issuing institution belongs , at least bring infringement proceedings under Article 259 TFEU in order to enable the Court to examine in those proceedings the question of the legislation applicable to such an employee and , consequently , whether the information contained in the E 101 certificate is correct ( judgment of 27 April 2017 , A-Rosa Flusschiff , C ‑ 620 / 15 , EU : C : 2017 : 309 , paragraph 46 ) . 62 Therefore , it must be held that the Administrative Commission ’ s role in the procedure laid down in Article 5 ( 2 ) to ( 4 ) of Regulation No 987 / 2009 is merely to reconcile the points of view of the competent authorities of the Member State which brought the matter before it . 63 That finding is not called into question by Article 89 ( 3 ) of Regulation No 987 / 2009 , which provides that the competent authorities must ensure that their institutions are aware of and apply all the EU provisions , legislative or otherwise , including the decisions of the Administrative Commission , in the areas covered by Regulations Nos 883 / 2004 and 987 / 2009 and under the conditions for which they provide , since that provision does not intend in any way to change the role of the Administrative Commission within the framework of the procedure to which it refers in the preceding paragraph and thus the status of an opinion on the conclusions reached by that commission in that procedure . 64 Accordingly , the answer to the first part of the second question is that 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 on both the social security institutions of the Member State in which the activity is carried out and the courts of that Member State , so long as the certificate has not been withdrawn or declared invalid by the Member State in which was issued , even though the competent authorities of the latter Member State and the Member State in which the activity is carried out have brought the matter before the Administrative Commission which held that that certificate was incorrectly issued and should be withdrawn .
The second part of the second question 65 By the second part of the second 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 , binds both the social security institutions of the Member State in which the activity was carried out and the courts of that Member State , if necessary , with retroactive effect , even though that certificate was issued only after that Member State determined that the worker was subject to compulsory insurance under its legislation . – Admissibility 66 The Hungarian Government submits that the present question is hypothetical , since no A1 certificate was issued retroactively , after the Austrian authorities determined that the workers concerned were subject to compulsory insurance under Austrian law . 67 According to the information provided in the order for reference , some of the A1 certificates at issue in the main proceedings were issued retroactively .
It is also clear from that decision that the Austrian institution had already determined that some of the workers concerned were subject to compulsory insurance under Austrian law before the competent Hungarian authority issued A1 certificates for those workers . 68 According to settled case-law , it is for the national court to find the facts and determine the relevance of the questions it wishes to ask ( see , to that effect , judgments of 26 October 2016 , Hoogstad , C ‑ 269 / 15 , EU : C : 2016 : 802 , paragraph 19 , and of 27 April 2017 , A-Rosa Flussschiff , C ‑ 620 / 15 , EU : C : 2017 : 309 , paragraph 35 ) . 69 It follows that the second part of the second question must be regarded as admissible since , according to the information provided by the referring court , the answer given by the Court of Justice may be useful to that court in order to determine whether at least some of the A1 certificates at issue are binding . – Substance 70 First of all , it must be recalled that an E 101 certificate , issued in accordance with Article 11a of Regulation No 574 / 72 , may have a retroactive effect .
In particular , while it is preferable that such a certificate is issued before the beginning of the period concerned , it may also be issued during that period or indeed after its expiry ( see , to that effect , judgment of 30 March 2000 , Banks and Others , C ‑ 178 / 97 , EU : C : 2000 : 169 , paragraphs 52 to 57 ) . 71 As is clear from Regulations Nos 883 / 2004 and 987 / 2009 , there is no provision of EU law which prevents the application of that finding to A1 certificates . 72 In particular , it is true that Article 15 ( 1 ) of Regulation No 987 / 2009 provided , in the version applicable at the beginning of the period concerned , that ‘ where a person pursues his activity in a Member State other than the Member State competent under Title II of [ Regulation No 883 / 2004 ] , the employer or , in the case of a person who does not pursue an activity as an employed person , the person concerned shall inform the competent institution of the Member State whose legislation is applicable thereof , whenever possible in advance ’ and that ‘ that institution shall without delay make information concerning the legislation applicable to the person concerned … available to the person concerned and to the institution designated by the competent authority of the Member State in which the activity is pursued ’ .
However , the issue of an A1 certificate during or even after the end of the period of employment concerned is still possible . 73 Therefore , it must then be determined whether an A1 certificate may apply with retroactive effect , even though , at the date on which that certificate was issued , there was already a decision of the competent institution of the Member State in which the activity is carried out according to which the worker concerned is subject to the legislation of that Member State . 74 In that connection , it must be recalled , as is clear from the answer to the first question set out in paragraphs 36 to 47 of the present judgment , that so long as it has not been withdrawn or declared invalid , an A1 certificate issued by the competent institution of a Member State under Article 12 ( 1 ) of Regulation No 883 / 2004 , like its predecessor the E 101 certificate , binds both the social security institutions of the Member State in which the activity is carried out and the courts of that Member State . 75 Consequently , in those specific circumstances , it cannot be held that a decision such as that at issue in the main proceedings , by which the competent institution of the Member State in which the activity is carried out decides to make the workers concerned subject to compulsory insurance under its legislation , constitutes a document ‘ showing ’ the position of the person concerned , within the meaning of Article 5 ( 1 ) of Regulation No 987 / 2009 . 76 Finally , it must be added , as the Advocate General observed in point 66 of his Opinion , that the question whether the authorities concerned in the case in the main proceedings ought to have had recourse to the provisional application of one legislation under Article 6 of Regulation No 987 / 2009 according to the order of priority of the applicable legislation provided for therein , is without prejudice to the binding effect of the A1 certificates at issue .
In particular , under Article 6 ( 1 ) the rules governing a difference of views relating to the provisional application of legislation apply ‘ unless otherwise provided for in [ that regulation ] ’ . 77 Having regard to the foregoing considerations , the answer to the second part of the second question is that 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 on both the social security institutions of the Member State in which the activity is carried out and the courts of that Member State , if appropriate with retroactive effect , even though that certificate was issued only after that Member State determined that the worker concerned was subject to compulsory insurance under its legislation .
The third question 78 By its third question , the referring court asks essentially whether Article 12 ( 1 ) of Regulation No 883 / 2004 must be interpreted as meaning that , in the case of a worker who is posted by his employer to work in another Member State , is replaced by another worker posted by another employer , the latter worker must be regarded as being ‘ sent to replace another person ’ within the meaning of that provision so that he cannot benefit from the specific rule laid down in that provision in order to remain subject to the legislation of the Member State in which his employer normally carries on its activities .
That court also asks whether the fact that the employers of the two workers concerned have their registered office in the same Member State or the fact that they may have personal or organisational ties is relevant in that regard . – Admissibility 79 The Belgian Government submits that the third question is hypothetical in that it asks whether the fact that the second employer has its registered office in a Member State other than that in which the first employer has its registered office is relevant to the answer to the question referred , even though the two employers concerned in the case in the main proceedings are established in the same Member State . 80 In that connection , it must be stated that the third question is not hypothetical , for the reason set out in the preceding paragraph , since part of that question refers , by its very wording , to the fact that the registered offices of the employers in question are in the same Member State , a fact which corresponds to those in the main proceedings in that according to the information set out in the order for reference , both Martin-Meat and Martimpex are established in Hungary . – Substance 81 From the outset , it must be observed that the third question was referred only in the event the Court interpreted the second question as meaning that the binding nature of an A1 certificate , which follows from the answer to the first question , may be limited in one of the situations mentioned in the second question . 82 That being the case , according to settled case-law , the procedure provided for by Article 267 TFEU is an instrument of cooperation between the Court of Justice and national courts by means of which the former provides the latter with interpretation of such EU law as is necessary for them to give judgment in cases upon which they are called to adjudicate ( see , to that effect , order of 7 September 2017 , Alandžak and Others , C ‑ 187 / 17 , not published , EU : C : 2017 : 662 , paragraphs 9 and 10 ) . 83 As the Austrian and German Governments and the Commission submit in substance , since the third question concerns the reach of the conditions , laid down in Article 12 ( 1 ) of Regulation No 883 / 2004 , according to which , in order to remain subject to the legislation of the Member State in which the employer normally carries out its activities , the person posted must not have been ‘ sent to replace another person ’ ( ‘ the non-replacement condition ’ ) , that question relates to the subject matter of the dispute in the main proceedings .
By that question , the referring court asks which of the interpretations put forward by the two Member States which have submitted their difference of opinion to the Administrative Commission is to be preferred , since their contradictory interpretations with regard to the scope of the non-replacement condition are , as is clear from the file submitted to the Court , at the origin of the disagreement between the parties in the main proceedings regarding the legislation applicable to the workers concerned . 84 Furthermore , the Austrian Government argues that it is conceivable that no E 101 or A1 form was issued by the competent Hungarian institution to some of the many workers concerned and that , consequently , the interpretation of the non-replacement condition is directly relevant to the resolution of the dispute in the main proceedings with regard to those workers . 85 In those circumstances , and although , as is clear from the answers to the first and second questions , the referring court is bound by the A1 certificates at issue in the main proceedings so long as they have not been withdrawn by the competent Hungarian institution or declared invalid by the Hungarian courts , it is appropriate to answer the third question . 86 In the case in the main proceedings , it is apparent that Martin-Meat ’ s workers were posted to Austria between 2007 and 2012 to carry out meat cutting in the premises of Alpenrind .
From 1 February 2012 until 31 January 2014 , thus including the period concerned , Martimpex ’ s workers were posted to Austria to perform the same work .
Furthermore , it follows from recitals 5 and 8 of that regulation that it is necessary , within the framework of the coordination of national social security systems , to guarantee as effectively as possible equality of treatment for persons occupied in the territory of a Member State . 99 It follows from the findings set out in paragraphs 89 to 98 of the present judgment that the recurrent use of posted workers to fill the same post , even though the employers responsible for posting workers are different , does not comply with the wording or the objectives of Article 12 ( 1 ) of Regulation No 883 / 2004 and is not consistent with the context of which that provision is part , so that a person posted cannot benefit from the special rule laid down in that provision if he replaces another worker . 100 Having regard to all of the foregoing considerations , the answer to the third question is that Article 12 ( 1 ) of Regulation No 883 / 2004 must be interpreted as meaning that , if a worker who is posted by his employer to carry out work in another Member State is replaced by another worker posted by another employer , the latter employee must be regarded as being ‘ sent to replace another person ’ , within the meaning of that provision , so that he cannot benefit from the special rules laid down in that provision in order to remain subject to the legislation of the Member State in which his employer normally carries out its activities .
The fact that the employers of the two workers concerned have their registered offices in the same Member State or that they may have personal or organisational links is irrelevant in that respect .
Costs 101 Since these proceedings are , for the parties to the main proceedings , a step in the action pending before the national court , the decision on costs is a matter for that court .
Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court , other than the costs of those parties , are not recoverable .
On those grounds , the Court ( First Chamber ) hereby rules : 1 .
Article 5 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EC ) No 987 / 2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation ( EC ) No 883 / 2004 , as amended by Commission Regulation ( EU ) No 1244 / 2010 of 9 December 2010 , read together with Article 19 ( 2 ) of Regulation No 987 / 2009 , as amended by Regulation No 1244 / 2010 , must be interpreted as meaning that an A1 certificate , issued by the competent institution of a Member State under Article 12 ( 1 ) of Regulation ( EC ) No 883 / 2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems , as amended by Regulation No 1244 / 2010 , binds not only the institutions of the Member State in which the activity is carried out , but also the courts of that Member State . 2 .
Article 5 ( 1 ) of Regulation No 987 / 2009 , as amended by Regulation No 1244 / 2010 , read together with Article 19 ( 2 ) of Regulation No 987 / 2009 , as amended by Regulation No 1244 / 2010 , 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 , as amended by Regulation No 1244 / 2010 , is binding on both the social security institutions of the Member State in which the activity is carried out and the courts of that Member State so long as the certificate has not been withdrawn or declared invalid by the Member State in which was issued , even though the competent authorities of the latter Member State and the Member State in which the activity is carried out have brought the matter before the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems which held that that certificate was incorrectly issued and should be withdrawn .
Article 5 ( 1 ) of Regulation No 987 / 2009 , as amended by Regulation No 1244 / 2010 , read together with Article 19 ( 2 ) thereof , as amended by Regulation No 1244 / 2010 , 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 , as amended by Regulation No 1244 / 2010 , binds both social security institutions of the Member State in which the activity is carried out and the courts of that Member State , if appropriate with retroactive effect , even though that certificate was issued only after that Member State determined that the worker concerned was subject to compulsory insurance under its legislation . 3 .
Article 12 ( 1 ) of Regulation No 883 / 2004 , as amended by Regulation No 1244 / 2010 , must be interpreted as meaning that , if a worker who is posted by his employer to carry out work in another Member State is replaced by another worker posted by another employer , the latter employee must be regarded as being ‘ sent to replace another person ’ , within the meaning of that provision , so that he cannot benefit from the special rules laid down in that provision in order to remain subject to the legislation of the Member State in which his employer normally carries out its activities .
[ Signatures ] * Language of the case : German .
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL BOT delivered on 6 September 2018 ( 1 ) Case C ‑ 386 / 17 Stefano Liberato Luminita Luisa Grigorescu ( Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione ( Supreme Court of Cassation , Italy ) ) ( Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation ( EC ) No 44 / 2001 — Article 5 ( 2 ) — Article 27 — Article 35 ( 3 ) — Jurisdiction , recognition and enforcement of judgments on maintenance obligations — Regulation ( EC ) No 2201 / 2003 — Articles 19 and 24 — Jurisdiction , recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility — Lis pendens — Breach of the rules on lis pendens — Consequences — Prohibition of review of jurisdiction of the court of origin ) 1 .
This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 19 and 24 of Council Regulation ( EC ) No 2201 / 2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility , repealing Regulation ( EC ) No 1347 / 2000 . ( 2 ) 2 .
The request has been made in the context of proceedings between Mr Stefano Liberato and Ms Luminita Luisa Grigorescu concerning the recognition by the Italian courts of a judgment of the Romanian courts concerning marriage , parental responsibility and maintenance obligations . 3 .
This case will give the Court the opportunity to clarify whether a breach of the rules on lis pendens by the court second seised can constitute a ground for non-recognition of a judgment made by that court . 4 .