31

In those circumstances, the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Higher Social Security and Civil Service Court, Netherlands) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) (a) Must Article 14(2)(a) of [Regulation No 1408/71] be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, a driver of a heavy goods vehicle employed in international road transport is to be regarded as being a member of the travelling personnel of: (i) the transport undertaking which has recruited the person concerned, to which the person concerned is in fact fully available for an indefinite period, which exercises actual authority over the person concerned and which actually bears the wage costs; or (ii) the undertaking which has formally concluded an employment contract with the heavy goods vehicle driver and which, by agreement with the transport undertaking referred to under (i), paid the person concerned a salary and paid contributions in respect thereof in the Member State where that company has its registered office and not in the Member State where the transport undertaking referred to in (i) has its registered office; or (iii) both the undertaking referred to in (i) and the undertaking referred to in (ii) ? (b) Must Article 13(1)(b) of [Regulation No 883/2004] be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the employer of a heavy goods vehicle driver employed in international road transport is considered to be: (i) the transport undertaking which has recruited the person concerned, to which the person concerned is in fact fully available for an indefinite period, which exercises actual authority over the person concerned and which actually bears the wage costs; or (ii) the undertaking which has formally concluded an employment contract with the driver and which, by agreement with the transport undertaking referred to under (i), paid the worker a salary and paid contributions in respect thereof in the Member State where that undertaking has its registered office and not in the Member State where the transport undertaking referred to in (i) has its registered office; (iii) both the undertaking referred to in (i) and the undertaking referred to in (ii) ? (2) In the event that, in circumstances such as those at issue in the main proceedings, the employer is regarded as being the undertaking referred to in Question 1(a)(ii) and in Question 1(b)(ii): Do the specific conditions under which employers, such as temporary employment agencies and other intermediaries, can invoke the exceptions to the State-of-employment principle set out in Article 14(1)(a) of [Regulation No 1408/71] and in Article 12 of [Regulation No 883/2004] also apply by analogy, wholly or in part, to the dispute in the main proceedings for the purposes of Article 14(2)(a) of [Regulation No 1408/71] and of Article 13(1)(b) of [Regulation No 883/2004]? (3) In the event that, in circumstances such as those of the cases in the main proceedings, the employer is regarded as being the company referred to in Question 1(a)(ii) and in Question 1(b)(ii), and Question 2 is answered in the negative: Do the facts and circumstances [of the dispute in the main proceedings] constitute a situation that is to be interpreted as an abuse of EU law and/or an abuse of EFTA law? If so, what is the consequence thereof?’