„Walltopia“ AD v Direktor na Teritorialna direktsia na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite – Veliko Tarnovo.
Date: 2018-10-25
38


The purpose of the latter provision is, in particular, to promote freedom to provide services for the benefit of undertakings which avail themselves of it by sending workers to Member States other than that in which they are established. It is aimed at overcoming obstacles likely to impede freedom of movement for workers and also at encouraging economic interpenetration whilst avoiding administrative complications, in particular for workers and undertakings (see, by analogy, judgment of 10 February 2000, FTS, C‑202/97, EU:C:2000:75, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited).
39


In particular, in order to prevent an undertaking established in a Member State from being obliged to register its workers, normally subject to the social security legislation of that State, with the social security system of another Member State where they are sent to perform work of short duration — which would complicate exercise of freedom to provide services — Article 12(1) of Regulation No 883/2004 allows the undertaking to keep its workers registered under the social security system of the first Member State if the undertaking observes the conditions governing that freedom to provide services (see, by analogy, judgment of 10 February 2000, FTS, C‑202/97, EU:C:2000:75, paragraph 29 and the case-law cited).
41


In that connection it should be pointed out that the provisions of Title II of Regulation No 883/2004, of which Articles 11 to 16 form part, constitute a complete and uniform system of conflict rules. Those provisions are intended not only to prevent the simultaneous application of a number of national legislative systems and the complications which might ensue, but also to ensure that persons covered by that regulation are not left without social security cover because there is no legislation which is applicable to them (see, by analogy, judgment of 1 February 2017, Tolley, C‑430/15, EU:C:2017:74, paragraph 58 and the case-law cited).
42


Thus, where a person falls within the scope ratione personae of Regulation No 883/2004, as defined in Article 2 thereof, the rule in Article 11(1) of the regulation that the legislation of a single Member State is to apply is in principle applicable and the national legislation applicable is determined in accordance with the provisions of Title II of the regulation (see, by analogy, judgment of 1 February 2017, Tolley, C‑430/15, EU:C:2017:74, paragraph 59 and the case-law cited).
43


As regards Article 11(3) of Regulation No 883/2004, its sole purpose is to determine the national legislation applicable to persons who are in one of the situations referred to in subparagraphs (a) to (e) thereof (see, by analogy, judgment of 1 February 2017, Tolley, C‑430/15, EU:C:2017:74, paragraph 60 and the case-law cited).
47


Finally, as regards the fact that the national authority at issue in the main proceedings considered that, since Mr Punchev was no longer entitled to health insurance and was not an ‘insured person’ under Bulgarian law that Bulgarian legislation was not applicable to him, it must be recalled that it is true that the provisions of Title II of Regulation No 883/2004 are solely intended to determine the national legislation applicable to persons falling within the scope of that regulation. As such, they are not intended to lay down the conditions creating the right or the obligation to become affiliated to a social security scheme or to a particular branch of such a scheme. As the Court has pointed out several times, it is for the legislature of each Member State to lay down those conditions (see, to that effect, judgment of 3 May 1990, Kits van Heijningen, C‑2/89, EU:C:1990:183, paragraph 19 and the case-law cited).
48


However, when the Member States lay down the conditions creating the right or the obligation to become affiliated to a social security scheme, they are under an obligation to comply with the provisions of the EU law in force (see to that effect, judgment of 3 May 1990, Kits van Heijningen, C‑2/89, EU:C:1990:183, paragraph 20 and the case-law cited). In particular, the conflict rules laid down by Regulation No 883/2004 are mandatory for the Member States and the latter do not have the option to determine to what extent their own legislation or that of another Member State is applicable (see, to that effect, judgments of 23 September 1982, Kuijpers, 276/81, Eu:C:1982:317, paragraph 14; of 12 June 1986, Ten Holder, 302/84, EU:C:1986:242, paragraph 21; of 14 October 2010, van Delf and Others, C‑345/09, EU:C:2010:610, paragraphs 51 and 52; and of 13 July 2017, Szoja, C‑89/16, EU:C:2017:538, paragraph 42).
49


Therefore, the conditions establishing the right to affiliate to a social security scheme cannot have the effect of excluding from the scope of the legislation at issue persons to whom, pursuant to Regulation No 883/2004, that legislation is applicable (see to that effect, judgment of 3 May 1990, Kits van Heijningen, C‑2/89, EU:C:1990:183, paragraph 20 and the case-law cited). As stated in paragraph 41 above, the provisions of Title II of that regulation are intended, inter alia, to prevent persons falling within the scope of that regulation from being deprived of social security cover because there is no legislation which is applicable to them.