Ministre de l'Économie et des Finances v Gérard de Ruyter.
Date: 2015-02-26
18. Secondly, and unlike the situations giving rise to the judgments in Commission  v France (C‑34/98, EU:C:2000:84) and Commission  v France (C‑169/98, EU:C:2000:85), the Conseil d’État observed that the levies at issue in the main proceedings are not imposed on employment income and substitute income, thus operating in part as a substitute for social security contributions, but are imposed only on income from the assets of the taxpayer concerned, irrespective of pursuit of a professional activity by that person.
22. In order to answer this question, it must be recalled that Article 4 of Regulation No 1408/71 determines the matters covered by the regulation in terms which make it clear that social security schemes are subject in their entirety to the application of the rules of EU law (judgments in Jansen , 104/76, EU:C:1977:72, paragraph 7, and Rheinhold & Mahla , C‑327/92, EU:C:1995:144, paragraph 15).
23. The Court has stated that the decisive factor for the purposes of the application of Regulation No 1408/71 is that there must be a direct and sufficiently relevant link between the provision in question and the legislation governing the branches of social security listed in Article 4 of Regulation No 1408/71 (judgments in Rheinhold & Mahla , EU:C:1995:144, paragraph 23; Commission  v France , EU:C:2000:84, paragraph 35; and Commission  v France , EU:C:2000:85, paragraph 33).
24. The fact that a levy is categorised as a tax under national legislation does not mean that, in respect of Regulation No 1408/71, that same levy cannot be regarded as falling within the scope of that regulation (judgments in Commission  v France , EU:C:2000:84, paragraph 34, and Commission  v France , EU:C:2000:85, paragraph 32).
25. Nor can that conclusion be undermined by the f act that the levy at issue is, in part, designed to discharge a debt of the social security scheme caused by the financing of benefits paid out in the past (judgment in Commission  v France , EU:C:2000:84, paragraph 39) or, as also noted by the Advocate General in point 31 of her Opinion, the fact that that levy is not intended to replace previously existing social security contributions.
26. Similarly, whether benefits are obtained or not in return is irrelevant for the purposes of the application of Regulation No 1408/71 as the decisive criterion is that of the specific allocation of a contribution to the funding of the social security scheme of a Member State (see, to that effect, judgments in Commission  v France , EU:C:2000:84, paragraphs 39 and 40, and Commission  v France , EU:C:2000:85, paragraphs 37 and 38).
27. Accordingly, in cases which concerned tax levies imposed by the French tax authorities on employment income and substitute income received by employed and self-employed persons residing in France who were subject to the tax regime of the French Republic, but who worked in another Member State, the Court found that those levies were allocated specifically and directly to financing social security in France and concluded from this that they had a direct and sufficiently relevant link with the legislation governing the branches of social security listed in Article 4 of Regulation No 1408/71 (judgments in Commission  v France , EU:C:2000:84, paragraphs 36 and 37, and Commission  v France , EU:C:2000:85, paragraphs 34 and 35).
28. The same conclusion must follow with regard to the levies at issue in the main proceedings, which are not imposed on the employment income and substitute income of workers, but which are imposed on income from assets, since it is not in dispute that the proceeds of those levies are allocated specifically and directly to the financing of certain branches of social security in France or to the discharge of their debts.
29. Those levies therefore have a direct and sufficiently relevant link with the legislation governing the branches of social security listed in Article 4 of Regulation No 1408/71, irrespective of the absence of a link between the income from assets of taxable persons and the pursuit of a professional activity by them.
31. According to settled case-law, the existence of an employment relationship is irrelevant for the purposes of the application of Regulation No 1408/71, as the determining factor in this regard is the fact that a person is insured, compulsorily or on an optional basis, for one or more of the contingencies covered by a general or special social security scheme mentioned in Article 1(a) of that regulation (see, to that effect, judgments in Martínez Sala , C‑85/96, EU:C:1998:217, paragraph 36, and Borger , C‑516/09, EU:C:2011:136, paragraphs 26 and 28).
32. Furthermore, the concept of ‘legislation’ within the meaning of Article 1(j) of Regulation No 1408/71 is broad, including all the types of legislative, regulatory and administrative measures adopted by the Member States, and must be taken to cover all the national measures applicable in the matter (judgment in Bozzone , 87/76, EU:C:1977:60, paragraph 10).
34. In order to ensure free movement of employed and self-employed persons within the European Union, while upholding the principle of equal treatment of those persons under the various measures of national legislation, Title II of Regulation No 1408/71 has established a system of coordination concerning, inter alia, the determination of the legislation applicable to employed and self-employed persons who make use, under various circumstances, of their right to freedom of movement (see, to that effect, judgments in Derouin , C‑103/06, EU:C:2008:185, paragraph 20, and Tomaszewska , C‑440/09, EU:C:2011:114, paragraphs 25 and 28).
35. The completeness of that system of conflict rules has the effect of divesting the legislature of each Member State of the power to determine at its discretion the ambit and the conditions for the application of its national legislation so far as the persons who are subject thereto and the territory within which the provisions of national law take effect are concerned (judgments in Luijten , 60/85, EU:C:1986:307, paragraph 14, and Somova , C‑103/13, EU:C:2014:2334, paragraph 54).
36. In that regard, Article 13(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 provides that the persons to whom that regulation applies are to be subject to the legislation of a single Member State only, which therefore excludes — subject to the cases provided for in Articles 14c and 14f — any possibility of the overlapping of the national legislation of several Member States in respect of one and the same period (see, to that effect, judgment in Perenboom , 102/76, EU:C:1977:71, paragraph 11).
37. That principle that the legislation of a single Member State applies in matters of social security is aimed at avoiding the complications which may ensue from the simultaneous application of a number of national legislative systems and at eliminating the unequal treatment which, for persons moving within the European Union, would be the consequence of a partial or total overlapping of the applicable legislation (see, to that effect, judgments in Commission  v France , EU:C:2000:84, paragraph 46; Commission  v France , EU:C:2000:85, paragraph 43; and Allard , C‑249/04, EU:C:2005:329, paragraph 28).
39. To require those who, among the residents of a Member State, are insured under the social security scheme of another Member State to finance, in addition, even if only partially, the social security scheme of the Member State of residence would give rise to unequal treatment under Article 13 of Regulation No 1408/71, since all other residents of the latter Member State are required to contribute only to its social security scheme (see, to that effect, judgments in Commission  v France , EU:C:2000:84, paragraphs 45 to 48, and Commission  v France , EU:C:2000:85, paragraphs 42 to 45).