Case C-37/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 19 January 2018 — Vueling Airlines SA v Jean-Luc Poignant
Date: 2018-01-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: airline, airport, branch, civil procedure, criminal procedure, damages, fraud, moonlighting, primacy of EU law








C_2018112EN.01002301.xml










26.3.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 112/23





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 19 January 2018 — Vueling Airlines SA v Jean-Luc Poignant
(Case C-37/18)
(2018/C 112/30)
Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellant: Vueling Airlines SA

Respondent: Jean-Luc Poignant

Questions referred







1.


Is the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the European Union in its judgment of 27 April 2017, A-Rosa Flussschiff, C-620/15, of Article 14(2)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, (1) as amended and updated by Regulation (EC) No 118/97, (2) as amended by Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005, (3) applicable to a dispute relating to the offence of concealed employment in which E 101 certificates were issued under Article 14(1)(a), pursuant to Article 11(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation No 1408/71, (4) although the situation was covered by Article 14(2)(a)(i), for workers carrying on their activity in the territory of the Member State of which they are nationals and in which the air transport undertaking established in another Member State has a branch, and a mere reading of the E 101 certificate, which refers to an airport as the place where the worker is employed and an air transport undertaking as employer, suggested that that certificate had been obtained fraudulently?










2.


In the affirmative, must the principle of the primacy of EU law be interpreted as precluding a national court, bound under its domestic law by the principle that the force of res judicata of a judgment of a criminal court is binding on a civil court, from drawing the appropriate conclusions from a decision of a criminal court which is not compatible with the rules of EU law by ordering, in civil proceedings, an employer to pay damages to a worker solely because of the criminal conviction of that employer for concealed employment?






(1)  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416).

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 amending and updating Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1).

(3)  Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005 amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community and (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (OJ 2005 L 117, p. 1).

(4)  Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1972(I), p. 160).