# C_2011179EN.01000901.xml

| 18.6.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.6.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/9

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 21 March 2011 — Partena ASBL v Les Tartes de Chaumont-Gistoux SA

(Case C-137/11)

2011/C 179/15

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Cour du travail de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Partena ASBL

Applicant:

Defendant: Les Tartes de Chaumont-Gistoux SA

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | For the purposes of applying Article 13 et seq. of Regulation No 1408/71 (1) and, more specifically, Article 14c thereof, may a Member State, within the framework of its powers to define the conditions for coverage by its social security scheme for self-employed persons, treat the ‘management from abroad of a company which is liable to tax in that State’ in the same way as the exercise of an activity within its territory?; |
| --- | --- |

1.

For the purposes of applying Article 13 et seq. of Regulation No 1408/71 (1) and, more specifically, Article 14c thereof, may a Member State, within the framework of its powers to define the conditions for coverage by its social security scheme for self-employed persons, treat the ‘management from abroad of a company which is liable to tax in that State’ in the same way as the exercise of an activity within its territory?;

1

| 2. | Is subparagraph 4 of Article 3(1) of Decree No 38 of 27 July 1967 organising the social security scheme for self-employed persons compatible with the law of the European Union and, in particular, with freedom of movement and of residence as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in so far as it does not allow a person who is resident in another Member State and who manages from abroad a company which is liable to Belgian tax to rebut the presumption that he is covered by the social security scheme for self-employed persons, whereas an agent who is resident in Belgium and who does not manage such a company from abroad has the right to rebut that presumption and to adduce evidence that he is not carrying on an activity as a self-employed person for the purposes of subparagraph 1 of Article 3(1) of Royal Decree No 38? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is subparagraph 4 of Article 3(1) of Decree No 38 of 27 July 1967 organising the social security scheme for self-employed persons compatible with the law of the European Union and, in particular, with freedom of movement and of residence as guaranteed by Article 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in so far as it does not allow a person who is resident in another Member State and who manages from abroad a company which is liable to Belgian tax to rebut the presumption that he is covered by the social security scheme for self-employed persons, whereas an agent who is resident in Belgium and who does not manage such a company from abroad has the right to rebut that presumption and to adduce evidence that he is not carrying on an activity as a self-employed person for the purposes of subparagraph 1 of Article 3(1) of Royal Decree No 38?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ L 149, p. 2).

1

---