Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
Date: 2000-02-15
31 As the Court has held, however, the fact that a worker is required to pay, in respect of the same earned income, social charges arising under the legislation of several States, although he can be an insured person only in respect of the legislation of one State, means that the worker must pay contributions twice over, contrary to the provisions of Article 13 of Regulation No 1408/71 (see in particular Case 102/76 Perenboom [1977] ECR 815, paragraph 13, and Case C-60/93 Aldewereld [1994] ECR I-2991, paragraph 26).
32 It is common ground that the persons concerned by this infringement action, namely Community nationals resident in France but working in another Member State who, pursuant to the provisions of Article 13 of Regulation No 1408/71, are insured persons under the legislation of the State of employment alone, are being required, subject, where applicable, to conventions on the avoidance of double taxation concluded by the French Republic, to pay, in respect of income relating to their work in the Member State of employment, not only the social charges arising from the application of the latter's social security legislation, but also the social charges, in this case the CRDS, arising from the application of the legislation of the Member State of residence.
33 The argument of the French Government to the effect that since the CRDS is really to be categorised as a tax it falls outside the scope of Regulation No 1408/71 and accordingly is not caught by the prohibition against overlapping legislation cannot be accepted.
34 The fact that a levy is categorised as a tax under national legislation does not mean that, as regards Regulation No 1408/71, that same levy cannot be regarded as falling within the scope of that regulation and caught by the prohibition against overlapping legislation.
35 As the Court has held, in particular in Case C-327/92 Rheinhold & Mahla [1995] ECR I-1223, paragraph 15, Article 4 determines the matters covered by Regulation No 1408/71 in terms which make it clear that the national social security schemes are subject in their entirety to the application of the rules of Community law. At paragraph 23 of that judgment the Court stated that the decisive factor for the purposes of applying Regulation No 1408/71 is that there must be a link between the provision in question and the legislation governing the branches of social security listed in Article 4 of Regulation No 1408/71, and that that link must be direct and sufficiently relevant.
36 As the Commission rightly maintains, there is such a direct and sufficiently relevant link between the CRDS and the general French social security scheme so that it can be regarded as a levy covered by the prohibition against double contributions.
37 As the Advocate General noted at points 25 and 27 of his Opinion, in contrast to levies designed to meet general public charges, the purpose of the CRDS is specifically and directly to discharge the deficit of the general French social security scheme, and it forms part of a comprehensive reform of social protection in France aimed at ensuring the future financial equilibrium of that system, the branches of which are indisputably among those covered by Article 4(1) of Regulation No 1408/71.
39 Similarly, neither the fact that payment of the CRDS does not give entitlement to any direct and identifiable benefit in return nor the fact that it is in part designed to discharge a debt of the social security scheme caused by the financing of benefits paid out in the past can undermine that conclusion.
40 First, for the purposes of the application of Article 13 of Regulation No 1408/71, the decisive criterion is that of the specific allocation of a contribution to the funding of the social security scheme of a Member State. Whether benefits are obtained or not in return is therefore irrelevant in this connection.
45 Even if the CRDS is applicable in the same way to all residents in France, however, those who work in another Member State and who, in accordance with Article 13 of Regulation No 1408/71, contribute to the funding of the social security scheme of that State are being required in addition to finance, even if only partially, the social security scheme of the State of residence, whereas all other residents are exclusively required to contribute to the latter State's scheme.
46 The rule laid down in Article 13 of Regulation No 1408/71 that the legislation of a single Member State is to apply in matters of social security is aimed specifically at eliminating unequal treatment which is the consequence of partial or total overlapping of the legislation.
47 As is clear from the tenth recital in the preamble to Regulation No 1408/71, the principle that the legislation of a single Member State is to apply is aimed at guaranteeing the equality of treatment of all workers occupied on the territory of a Member State as effectively as possible.
48 It follows from the foregoing that, as the Advocate General noted in point 35 of his Opinion, in putting forward this objection the Commission is only focusing, in the light of Articles 48 and 52, on the same infringement as that found in the context of Article 13 of Regulation No 1408/71. Since the CRDS scheme is at the origin of the unequal treatment contrary to that article, it disregards to the same degree the provisions of the Treaty that Article 13 is designed to implement. The unequal treatment thus found constitutes an obstacle to the free movement of workers for which, in view of Article 13 of Regulation No 1408/71, there can be no justification.
49 As regards the argument of the French Government to the effect that in any event the CRDS only affects a limited number of the workers concerned by this action on account of bilateral conventions on the avoidance of double taxation concluded by the French Republic, and that the rate of the contested levy is minimal, it need merely be observed that, according to the case-law of the Court, the articles of the Treaty concerning the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital are fundamental Community provisions and any restriction, even minor, of that freedom is prohibited (see in particular Case C-49/89 Corsica Ferries France [1989] ECR 4441, paragraph 8).