Summary;Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2023:881
Date: 2023-11-16
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Subject matter: Social security for migrant workers
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Belgium

Anonymised version 
Translation C-415/22 – 1 
Case C-415/22 
Request for a preliminary ruling 
Date lodged: 
20 June 2022 
Referring court:  
Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) 
Date of the decision to refer: 
9 June 2022 
Applicant: 
JD 
Defendant: 
Acerta – Caisse d’assurances sociales ASBL 
Institut national d’assurances sociales pour travailleurs 
indépendants (Inasti) 
Belgian State 
  
[…] […] […] […] 
Date of delivery: 
9 June 2022 
 […] […] 
[…]    
[…]    
Subject matter: 
self-employed social 
security contributions 
   
[…]    
[…]    
[administrative references] 
EN 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 9. 6. 2022 – CASE C-415/22 
 
2  
Anonymised version 
Tribunal du travail francophone de 
Bruxelles (Brussels Labour Court (French-speaking), Belgium) 
11th Chamber 
Judgment 
IN THE CASE: 
JD, […] 
residing at […] in […] TERVUREN, 
applicant, 
[…] [appointment of the representative ad litem];  
v 
1/ L’ASBL ACERTA – Caisse d’Assurances Sociales pour travailleurs 
indépendants (Social Security Fund for the Self-employed), […] 
having its registered office at […] in […] BRUSSELS, 
defendant in the opposition to the payment order, 
[…] [appointment of the representative ad litem]; 
2/ L’Institut National d’Assurances Sociales pour Travailleurs Indépendants 
(National Social Security Institute for the Self-employed, […] ‘INASTI’), […] 
having its registered office at […] in […] BRUSSELS, 
defendant, 
[…] [appointment of the representative ad litem];  
3/ THE BELGIAN STATE, represented by Frank Vandenbroucke, Deputy 
Prime Minister and Minister of Social Affairs and Public Health, […] and David 
Clarinval, Minister for the Self-Employed, SMEs and Agriculture, Institutional 
Reforms and Democratic Renewal […] [appointment of the representative ad 
litem]; 
* * * * 
[…] [customary procedural formulation] 
Having regard to the application received at the Registry of this court on 
15 January 2021, which was brought by the applicant’s legal counsel against his 
ACERTA – CAISSE D’ASSURANCES SOCIALES 
 
3 
Anonymised version 
automatic liability – despite being a European official (of British nationality) born 
on 4 October 1940, retired on 18 March 2006 – since 12 February 2007 under the 
Belgian social security scheme for self-employed persons for having worked, in 
Belgium: 
- since February 2007, in the field of research and development in physical 
and natural sciences until June 2020, 
- since March 2016, as Chairman of the management board of the non-profit 
association […] [name of association] until March 2020, and 
- since October 2018, as President of the non-profit association […] [name of 
association] until October 2020; 
[…] 
[customary procedural formulation] 
The applicant claims, in essence, that: 
‘… 
By its judgment of 10 May 2017 (Wenceslas de Lobkowicz v Ministère des 
Finances et des Comptes publics, C-690/15), […] the Court of Justice 
confirmed that: 
(1) The Social security scheme for officials and servants of the European 
Union (SSEU) is of the same kind as the social security schemes 
covered by Regulation No 883/2004 in so far as it is primary, 
compulsory and complete, and 
(2) The principles established by the judgment in de Ruyter apply to 
servants of the European Union and (3) consequently it is prohibited 
to render EU servants liable for social levies allocated to the 
financing of the social security scheme of a Member State … 
Being EXCLUSIVELY and COMPULSORILY subject to the social security and 
health insurance scheme specific to the European Union (SSEU), which provides 
him with complete social protection, the principle of a single social security 
scheme prohibited INASTI from affiliating the applicant ‘by force’ to the Belgian 
social security scheme, from which he receives no benefit of any kind, be it 
contributory or non-contributory. He has contributed over 13 years at an 
outright loss …’;  
The defendant, 
- contends, first of all, as a matter of law, that ‘the combination of a retirement 
pension and the pursuit of an occupational activity as a self-employed person 
which gives rise to the applicability of Royal Decree No 38 is permitted, provided 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 9. 6. 2022 – CASE C-415/22 
 
4  
Anonymised version 
that, up to 31 December 2014, the professional income generated by that activity 
as a self-employed person does not exceed a specific threshold. Since 1 January 
2015, persons aged 65 and over have been permitted to earn an unlimited amount 
of additional income. 
(and that) 
[The court should] rule that a retired European official who exercises a self-
employed activity in Belgium and who is not liable to pay any social contributions 
would risk interfering with the equal treatment of officials of the European Union 
and [any] other official or self-employed or employed person in Belgium, since 
only European officials would be exempt from paying social security 
contributions for self-employed persons. 
The social security contributions paid by pensioners who continue to pursue a 
self-employed activity beyond pensionable age, and therefore in addition to their 
status as pensioners, are solidarity contributions …’;  
- then states, in fact and in the alternative, that, in view of the letter […] dated 
28 December 2020, which it then received, taking into account the five-year 
limitation period, the sum initially claimed of EUR 50 732.50 should be reduced 
to EUR 35 209.22; 
The two co-defendants, for their part, state, in essence, that in accordance with 
Article 14 of the Protocol (No 7) on the Privileges and Immunities of the 
European Union (OJ 2012 C 326, pp. 266-272), the EU legislature is to lay down 
the scheme of social security benefits for officials and other servants of the 
European Union. 
That is the purpose of the Staff Regulations established under Council Regulation 
No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC) of 18 December 1961 (OJ 1962 P 045, p. 1385), as 
amended many times since then (‘the Staff Regulations’). 
Under Article 72(1) of the Staff Regulations, European officials in active service 
receive health care under the EU Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme (‘JSIS’). They 
continue to benefit from them after they have ceased to hold office, in particular if 
they have remained in the service of the European Union until retirement age 
(Article 72(2) of the Staff Regulations) … 
Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2004 L 166, 
pp. 1-123) (‘Regulation No 883/2004/EC’) repealed 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 (OJ 1971 L 149, p. 2) (‘Regulation 
No 1408/71/EEC’). 
ACERTA – CAISSE D’ASSURANCES SOCIALES 
 
5 
Anonymised version 
Under Article 11(l) of Regulation No 883/2004/EC, persons to whom the 
regulation applies (in particular any national of one of the Member States of the 
European Union) ‘shall be subject to the legislation of a single Member State 
only’ as determined in accordance with that regulation. That principle, known as 
the principle of a single social security scheme, had already been laid down in 
Article 13(1) of Regulation No 1408/71/EEC. 
The case-law in that field may be summarised by reference to the judgment of the 
Court of Justice of 26 October 2016 in Case C-269/15 Rijksdienst voor 
Pensioenen v Willem Hoogstad, EU:C:2016:802 […], the following paragraphs of 
which should be cited: 
That decision given under Regulation No 1408/71/EEC (Article 13(1)) may be 
applied under Regulation No 883/2004/EC (Article 11(1)) (see, for example and 
to that effect: judgment of the Court of Justice of 18 January 2018, Jahin, 
C-45/17, EU:C:2018:18) […], as the Court of Justice emphasised, EU officials 
‘are [not] covered … by Article 48 TFEU, which conferred on the Council the 
task of instituting a scheme allowing workers to overcome any obstacles which 
may arise for them from national rules in the field of social security, a task which 
the Council fulfilled by adopting Regulation No 1408/71 and, subsequently, 
Regulation No 883/2004’ (see, to that effect, judgments of 3 October 2000, 
Ferlini, C-411/98, EU:C:2000:530, paragraphs 41 and 42, and of 16 December 
2004, My, C-293/03, EU:C:2004:821, paragraphs 34 to 37; confirmed by the 
judgment in Lobkowicz, paragraph 35). 
It follows that neither Regulation No 883/2004/EC nor, in particular, Article 11(1) 
thereof, relating to the principle of a single social security scheme, are applicable 
to them. 
The question then arose as to whether such a principle could nevertheless be 
applied by analogy to European officials under provisions of EU law. 
[The Court] thus states first of all that ‘the legal position of EU officials with 
regard to their social security obligations comes within the scope of EU law by 
reason of their employment by the European Union’ (see paragraph 38 of the 
judgment). 
That employment relationship had not existed, in the case of the applicant, since 
2006, that is to say, before Belgium claimed the payment from him of social 
security contributions from 2007. 
It follows that the application by analogy of the principle of a single social 
security scheme makes sense only where it is the employment relationship with 
the European Union that may be concerned and where it cannot be covered by a 
social security scheme other than that resulting from Article 14 of Protocol No 7 
and the Staff Regulations. 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 9. 6. 2022 – CASE C-415/22 
 
6  
Anonymised version 
In the present case, the application of the Belgian social security scheme (social 
regulations for self-employed persons) is not intended to concern or deal with the 
applicant’s employment relationship with the European Union or, more generally, 
‘employment within an EU institution’. Indeed, the applicant no longer had any 
employment relationship with the European Union between 2007 and 2020. 
The present case concerns the application, by analogy, therefore, of 
Article 11(3)(a) of Regulation No 883/2004, which provides for the application of 
the legislation of the place where the activity is pursued. 
In the present case, it was indeed in Belgium that the applicant worked as a self-
employed person from 2007 to 2020; 
The applicant, for his part, submitting ‘… the statement issued by the Commission 
on 16 September 2020 and worded as follows: 
“The Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme (JSIS) is compulsory, valid for 
24 hours out of 24 throughout the world (no country is excluded) and shall 
reimburse the medical expenses incurred by its members, their spouses and their 
children, on account of sickness, hospitalisation, maternity or accident, within the 
limits and under the conditions laid down in Article 72 of the Staff Regulations of 
Officials of the European Union and in accordance with the subordinate rules 
applicable to the JSIS. The scheme shall ensure the immediate cover of pre-
existing conditions, both for hospital care and for outpatient care. It also 
reimburses the costs of dental surgery, within the limits of the abovementioned 
rules” …’, rightly replies to the defendant, inter alia, that ‘… The Court of Justice, 
by its judgment of 10 May 2017 (Wenceslas de Lobkowicz v Ministère des 
Finances et des Comptes publics, C-690/15), ruled that: 
“EU officials are subject to the joint social security scheme of the EU 
institutions, which, pursuant to Article 14 of the Protocol, is laid down by the 
European Parliament and the Council acting by means of regulations adopted 
under the ordinary legislative procedure and after consultation of the other 
institutions [paragraph 36]. 
The scheme of social benefits was introduced by the Staff Regulations which 
set out the rules applicable to EU officials under Title V thereof, which is headed 
“Emoluments and social security for officials”, and, in particular, Chapters 2 and 
3 thereof, which relate to social security benefits and pensions [paragraph 37]. 
Therefore, the legal position of EU officials with regard to their social security 
obligations comes within the scope of EU law by reason of their employment 
by the European Union (see, to that effect, judgment of 13 July 1983, Forcheri, 
152/82, EU:C:1983:205, paragraph 9) [paragraph 38]. 
The requirement for Member States to observe EU law when exercising their 
power to organise their social security schemes, as noted in paragraph 34 above, 
therefore extends to the rules governing the employment relationship 
ACERTA – CAISSE D’ASSURANCES SOCIALES 
 
7 
Anonymised version 
between an EU official and the European Union, that is to say, the relevant 
provisions of the Protocol and of the Staff Regulations [paragraph 39]. 
In that respect, as observed by the Advocate General in point 72 of his Opinion, 
first of all, the Protocol has the same legal value as the Treaties (Opinion 2/13 
(Accession of the European Union to the ECHR) of 18 December 2014, 
EU:C:2014:2454, paragraph 161) [paragraph 40].  
By analogy with Article 12 of the Protocol, which establishes, in respect of EU 
officials, a uniform tax for the benefit of the European Union on salaries, wages 
and emoluments paid by it and, consequently, provides for an exemption from 
national taxes on those amounts, Article 14 of the Protocol, in that it confers on 
the EU institutions the power to establish the scheme of social security for 
their own civil servants, must be regarded as meaning that the compulsory 
affiliation of EU officials to a national social security scheme and the 
requirement for those officials to contribute to the funding of such a scheme 
are outside the jurisdiction of the Member States [paragraph 41]. 
Secondly, the Staff Regulations, in so far as they were established by 
Regulation No 259/68, have all the characteristics listed in Article 288 TFEU, 
which stipulates that a regulation has general application, is binding in its 
entirety and is directly applicable in all Member States. It follows that all 
Member States are also bound by the Staff Regulations (see, to that effect, 
judgments of 20 October 1981, Commission v Belgium, 137/80, EU:C:1981:237, 
paragraphs 7 and 8; of 7 May 1987, Commission v Belgium, 186/85, 
EU:C:1987:208, paragraph 21; of 4 December 2003, Kristiansen, C-92/02, 
EU:C:2003:652, paragraph 32; and of 4 February 2015, Melchior, C-647/13, 
EU:C:2015:54, paragraph 22) [paragraph 42]. 
… 
It follows from the foregoing that the European Union alone, and not the 
Member States, has competence to establish the rules applicable to EU 
officials in respect of their social security obligations [paragraph 44]. 
In fact, as observed by the Advocate General in point 76 of his Opinion, 
Article 14 of the Protocol and the provisions of the Staff Regulations on social 
security for EU officials fulfil, in respect of those officials, a function that is 
similar to that which Article 13 of Regulation No 1408/71 and Article 11 of 
Regulation No 883/2004 fulfil, in that they prohibit any obligation on EU 
officials to contribute to several schemes in this field [paragraph 45]. 
National legislation, …, which subjects the income of an EU official to 
contributions and social levies specifically allocated for the funding of the social 
security schemes of the Member State concerned, therefore infringes the exclusive 
competence of the European Union under Article 14 of the Protocol and the 
relevant provisions of the Staff Regulations, in particular those which prescribe 
REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING OF 9. 6. 2022 – CASE C-415/22 
 
8  
Anonymised version 
mandatory contributions to the funding of a social security scheme by EU officials 
[paragraph 46].[”]  
… 
As regards the Belgian State, in a judgment of 26 October 2016, the Court of 
Justice held to the same effect that: 
… 
“The completeness of that system of conflict rules has the effect of divesting the 
legislature of each Member State of the power to determine at its discretion the 
ambit and the conditions for the application of its national legislation so far as the 
persons who are subject thereto and the territory within which the provisions of 
national law take effect are concerned (judgments of 10 July 1986, Luijten, 60/85, 
EU:C:1986:307, paragraph 14, 5 November 2014, Somova, C-103/13, 
EU:C:2014:2334, paragraph 54, and 26 February 2015, de Ruyter, C-623/13, 
EU:C:2015:123, paragraph 35)” [paragraph 34]. 
“Hence, since Council Regulation (EEC) No 2195/91 of 25 June 1991 (OJ 1991 
L 206, p. 2), amending Regulation No 1408/71, introduced point (f) into 
Article 13(2) of Regulation No 1408/71, the principle that only one legislation is 
to apply is also applicable to workers who have definitively ceased their 
professional activities” [paragraph 38]. 
… 
In those circumstances, it must be held that the applicant’s membership of the 
Belgian social security scheme for self-employed persons has no legal basis. 
For that reason, the defendants must be ordered to annul that membership with 
retroactive effect …’;  
Moreover, [the] ‘practical guide (for) reimbursement of medical expenses [’] … 
states, on page 3 thereof: ‘Who are the beneficiaries of the JSIS?’: [‘]Members … 
Pensioners …’ 
Furthermore, according to the ‘commentaire article par article (du) Statut de la 
fonction publique de l’Union Européenne[’] by Valérie Giacobbo-Peyronnel, 
Brussels, Emile Bruylant (p. 284), Christophe Verdure wrote[:] 
‘… Concept of a member. In the context of Article 72 of the Staff Regulations, 
the term ‘member’ is given a broad meaning. An official is automatically a 
member of the JSIS. He will continue to benefit from that cover, first, after 
retirement, if he has remained in the service of the European Union until the 
age of that retirement …’;  
ACERTA – CAISSE D’ASSURANCES SOCIALES 
 
9 
Anonymised version 
Finally, it appears from an examination of the European case-law relied on that a 
case such as that of the applicant appears not yet to have been envisaged; 
Moreover, the questions of possible fault on the part of one, two or three co-
defendants and, therefore, of the compensation of the applicant in addition to the 
reimbursement claimed above, as quantified[,] could, where applicable, be 
addressed only in the light of the answer received to the question referred – at the 
suggestion in the alternative common to the applicant and co-defendants – to the 
Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling, on the basis of 
point (a) of the first paragraph and the second paragraph of Article 267 of the 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, […] 
ON THOSE GROUNDS, 
THE COURT, 
[…] 
[…] [customary procedural formulation] 
On the basis of point (a) of the first paragraph and the second paragraph of 
Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union[,] asks the 
Court of Justice of the European Union for a preliminary ruling on the following 
question: 
‘Does the principle of EU law based on a single social security scheme applicable 
to workers, whether employed or self-employed, active or retired, preclude a 
Member State of residence from requiring, as in the present case, a retired official 
of the European Commission, who pursues an activity as a self-employed person, 
to be subject to its social security scheme and the payment of purely ‘solidarity’ 
social security contributions, where the retired official is subject to the 
compulsory social security scheme of the European Union and does not derive any 
benefits, be they contributory or non-contributory, from the national scheme to 
which he or she is subject by force?’;  
Invites the principal registrar to send it with the documents in the files of the 
parties to the principal registrar of the Court of Justice; 
Stays its proceedings in the meantime; 
[…] 
Decision delivered by the 11th Chamber of the Tribunal du travail francophone de 
Bruxelles (Brussels Labour Court (French-speaking), Belgium) […] [composition 
of the Chamber hearing the case] 
[…] 
in open court on 9 June 2022 […]