Case C-203/24, Hakamp: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 15 March 2024 – KN v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank
Date: 2024-03-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, barge, crew, establishment, frontier worker, residence, social security legislation, social-security harmonisation, working time








C_202403741EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2024/3741


24.6.2024






Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 15 March 2024 – KN v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank


(Case C-203/24, Hakamp)
                (1)

(C/2024/3741)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings


Applicant: KN

Defendant: Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank

Questions referred







1.


What circumstances or types of circumstances are appropriate for assessing on the basis of Article 14(8) of the Implementing Regulation (2) the question whether a person who normally pursues an activity as an employed person in two or more Member States pursues a substantial part of his activities in the State of residence in a case in which it is established that he performs activities there for 22 percent of his working time? Is it required in that respect that: (i) a circumstance be directly linked to the pursuit of activities, (ii) a circumstance contain an indication as to the place where the activities are performed, and (iii) quantitative conclusions can be drawn from the circumstance as to the weight that can be attributed to the activities that are performed in the State of residence as compared with the total of all the activities of the person concerned?










2.


Must or can this assessment, in view of the answer to question 1, take into account: (i) the residence of the employee, (ii) the place of registration of the barge on which the employee performs his activities, (iii) the place of establishment of the owner and operator of the barge, (iv) the place where the vessel sailed during other periods in which the employee was not working on it and was not yet in the service of the employer, (v) the place of establishment of the employer, and (vi) the place where the employee boards and disembarks the vessel?










3.


Over which period must it be assessed whether an employee pursues a substantial part of his activities in his State of residence?










4.


Does the competent body of a Member State, in determining the legislation applicable, have discretion which the courts must in principle respect with regard to the concept of ‘substantial part of his activity’ in Article 13(1) of the Basic Regulation (3) and, if so, how far does that discretion extend?






(1)  The name of the present case is a fictitious name. It does not correspond to the real name of any party to the proceedings.

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems (OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1).

(3)  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, p. 1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2024/3741/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)