Judgment — ECLI:EU:C:2024:337
Date: 2024-04-18
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Subject matter: Principles, objectives and tasks of the Treaties;Privileges and immunities
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Belgium

Summary C-195/23 – 1 
Case C-195/23 
Summary of the request for a preliminary ruling pursuant to Article 98(1) of 
the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice 
Date lodged:  
27 March 2023 
Referring court or tribunal:  
Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles (Belgium) 
Date of the decision to refer:  
13 March 2023 
Applicant:  
GI 
Defendant:  
Partena, assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants ASBL 
  
1. Subject matter and facts of the dispute: 
1 GI, an official at the European Commission, has, since 2015, had additional 
employment as a teacher, up to a maximum of 20 teaching hours per year. 
2 By means of a letter dated 4 July 2018, the Institut national d’assurances sociales 
pour travailleurs indépendants (National Institute for the Social Security of the 
Self-employed, ‘INASTI’) reminded GI that, in his capacity as a teacher, he was 
engaged in self-employment and invited him to join a social insurance fund of his 
choosing. 
3 GI joined the Partena insurance fund and paid the social security contributions. 
4 On 15 March 2022, GI contested the fact that he was subject to the Belgian social 
security scheme for the self-employed and ordered Partena to refund the social 
security contributions paid in the amount of EUR 3 242.09. 
5 On 13 October 2022, GI brought an action before the Tribunal du travail (Labour 
Tribunal), the referring court. 
EN 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-195/23 
 
2  
2. Provisions at issue: 
A. The Treaty on European Union 
6 Article 4(3) TEU provides: 
‘Pursuant to the principle of sincere cooperation, the Union and the Member 
States shall, in full mutual respect, assist each other in carrying out tasks which 
flow from the Treaties. 
The Member States shall take any appropriate measure, general or particular, to 
ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaties or resulting from 
the acts of the institutions of the Union. 
The Member States shall facilitate the achievement of the Union’s tasks and 
refrain from any measure which could jeopardise the attainment of the Union's 
objectives’. 
B. Protocol No 7 on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Union 
(OJ 2010 C 83, p. 266) 
7 Article 12 provides: 
‘Officials and other servants of the Union shall be liable to a tax for the benefit of 
the Union on salaries, wages and emoluments paid to them by the Union, in 
accordance with the conditions and procedure laid down by the European 
Parliament and the Council, acting by means of regulations in accordance with the 
ordinary legislative procedure and after consultation of the institutions concerned. 
They shall be exempt from national taxes on salaries, wages and emoluments paid 
by the Union’. 
8 Article 14 provides: 
‘The European Parliament and the Council, acting by means of regulations in 
accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure and after consultation of the 
institutions concerned, shall lay down the scheme of social security benefits for 
officials and other servants of the Union’. 
3. Arguments of the parties: 
A. GI 
9 GI argues, in essence, that the obligation to comply with the social security 
scheme for the self-employed infringes the principle of a single social security 
scheme for European institution officials, Article 4(3) TEU, and the principle of 
PARTENA ASSURANCES 
 
3 
sincere cooperation, in that it constitutes an obstruction likely to discourage 
employment within an EU institution. 
B. Partena 
10 According to INASTI, GI falls under the definition of a self-employed person due 
to his teaching activity, and must therefore be a member of a social insurance fund 
for the self-employed and pay social security contributions. 
4. Assessment of the court: 
11 As GI is an EU official, Articles 12 and 14 of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges 
and immunities of the European Union should be taken into account. 
12 However, in the judgment of 10 May 2017, Wenceslas de Lobkowicz v Ministère 
des Finances et des Comptes publics, C-690/15, EU:C:2017:355, the Court of 
Justice stated: 
‘36 … 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. 
(…) 
41 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. 
(…) 
44 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. 
45 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 
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-195/23 
 
4  
Regulation No 883/2004 fulfil, in that they prohibit any obligation on EU 
officials to contribute to several schemes in this field. 
46 National legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, 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 mandatory contributions to the 
funding of a social security scheme by EU officials. 
(…) 
On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) hereby rules: 
Article 14 of Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European 
Union, annexed to the EU, FEU and EAEC Treaties, and the provisions of the 
Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union on the joint social security 
scheme of the EU institutions must be interpreted as precluding national 
legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides that 
income from real estate received in a Member State by an official of the European 
Union who has his or her domicile for tax purposes in that Member State is 
subject to contributions and social levies that are allocated for the funding of the 
social security scheme of that same Member State’. (Emphasis added by the court) 
13 Therefore, the social security scheme for EU officials is a joint scheme for which 
the European Union has exclusive competence. 
14 Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems establishes the 
principle of single applicable legislation. 
15 However, in view of the case-law of the Court of Justice, Regulation (EC) 
No 883/2004, and in particular Article 11(1) on the principle of single applicable 
legislation, are not applicable to EU officials (see, to that effect, judgments of 
16 December 2004, Gregorio My v Office national des pensions (ONP), 
C-293/03, EU:C:2004:821 and of 10 May 2017, Wenceslas de Lobkowicz v 
Ministère des Finances et des Comptes publics, C-690/15, EU:C:2017:355). 
16 However, the question arises as to whether such a principle can apply by analogy 
to EU officials. In its judgment of 10 May 2017 Wenceslas de Lobkowicz v 
Ministère des Finances et des Comptes publics, C-690/15, EU:C:2017:355, the 
Court of Justice seems to reply in the affirmative, but the question referred for a 
preliminary ruling related to income from real estate and not income from 
employment other than that associated with the status of European official, which 
does not correspond to the situation of GI, who is performing another professional 
activity. 
PARTENA ASSURANCES 
 
5 
17 Furthermore, in the spirit of the principle of sincere cooperation, established by 
Article 4(3) TEU, the Court of Justice departed from the national provisions of a 
Member State in terms of social security by considering that those provisions are 
likely to hinder, and hence discourage, employment within the EU institutions. 
18 In its judgment of 10 September 2015, Aliny Wojciechowski v Office national des 
pensions (ONP), C-408/14, EU:C:2015:591, the Court of Justice stated: 
‘44  Such legislation could deter a worker who has acquired a certain length of 
service under the pension scheme for employed persons in that Member State 
from accepting a post in the service of an EU institution located in that State or 
encourage him to leave the post he holds in that institution early if, on account of 
that legislation, he may, by holding a post in that institution or by remaining in its 
service for a considerable time, lose the opportunity of benefiting from the 
pension rights which he has acquired by virtue of his activity as an employed 
person within that Member State prior to entering the service of the European 
Union. 
45 Such consequences cannot be accepted in the light of the duty of sincere 
cooperation and assistance which Member States owe the European Union and 
which finds expression in the obligation laid down in Article 4(3) TEU to 
facilitate the achievement of the European Union’s tasks’. 
19 In its judgment of 4 February 2015, Office national de l’emploi v Marie-Rose 
Melchior, C-647/13, EU:C:2015:54, the Court of Justice stated: 
‘27  Legislation of a Member State that does not take into account, in relation to 
eligibility for unemployment benefit, periods of work completed as a member of 
the contract staff in an EU institution established in that Member State is also such 
as to impede the recruitment by those institutions of contract staff. As the 
Advocate General has observed in points 51 to 53 of his Opinion, legislation of 
that kind is liable to deter workers resident in that Member State from engaging in 
employment in an EU institution the duration of which, as limited by regulation, 
means that they face the prospect of having, sooner or later, to enter or re-enter the 
national labour market, since, owing to that employment, they may not reach the 
number of working days that is required by that legislation to claim benefits in the 
event of unemployment. 
28 Such legislation may give rise to the same deterrent effect as regards the 
failure to treat days of unemployment which have given rise to payment of an 
unemployment allowance pursuant to the Conditions of Employment as working 
days for the purpose of eligibility for unemployment benefit in that Member State, 
given that days of unemployment for which benefit has been paid under the 
legislation of that Member State are so treated’. 
20 Lastly, in its judgment of 10 May 2017, Wenceslas de Lobkowicz v Ministère des 
Finances et des Comptes publics, C-690/15, EU:C:2017:355, the Court of Justice 
added:  
SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING – CASE C-195/23 
 
6  
‘47 In addition, such legislation might interfere with the equal treatment of EU 
officials and, therefore, discourage employment within an EU institution, since 
some officials would be required to contribute to a national social security scheme 
in addition to the joint social security scheme of the EU institutions’. 
21 From the examination of the cited case-law, it seems that a case such as that of GI 
has not yet been considered and submitted to the Court of Justice. However, the 
issues of GI’s being subject to the Belgian social security scheme for the self-
employed can only be addressed in the light of the reply of the Court of Justice to 
the question referred for a preliminary ruling, which will be put forward in 
application of Article 267 TFEU. 
22 The court specifies that a similar question referred for a preliminary ruling (albeit 
in a different context) was put to the Court of Justice on 9 June 2022 in a request 
for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice under case number C-415/22. 
5. The question referred for a preliminary ruling: 
23 The referring court refers the following question to the Court of Justice: 
Do Protocol (No 7) on the privileges and immunities of the European Union, in 
particular Article 14 thereof, the principle of a single social security scheme 
applicable to workers, whether employed or self-employed, active or retired, and 
the principle of sincere cooperation as set out in Article 4(3) of the Treaty on 
European Union preclude a Member State from imposing a national social 
security scheme on, and requiring the payment of social security contributions 
from, an official who, in addition to his employment within a European 
institution, also carries out additional teaching activities with the latter’s 
authorisation, when that official is, by virtue of the Staff Regulations of Officials, 
already subject to the joint social security scheme of the EU institutions?