Request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep (Netherlands) lodged on 25 September 2018 — AFMB Ltd and Others v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank
(Case C-610/18)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Centrale Raad van Beroep
Parties to the main proceedings
Appellants: AFMB Ltd and Others
Respondent: Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank
Questions referred
A. Must Article 14(2)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 1 be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the cases in the main proceedings, an international truck driver in paid employment is to be regarded as being a member of the driving staff of:
(a) the transport company which has recruited the person concerned, to which the person concerned is de facto fully available for an indefinite period, which exercises effective control over the person concerned and which actually bears the wage costs; or
(b) the company which has formally concluded an employment contract with the truck driver and which, by agreement with the transport company referred to under (a), paid the worker a salary and paid contributions in respect thereof in the Member State where that company has its registered office and not in the Member State where the transport company referred to in (a) has its registered office;
(c) both the company under (a) and the company under (b)?
B. Must Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 2 be interpreted as meaning that, in circumstances such as those of the cases in the main proceedings, the employer of an international truck driver in paid employment is considered to be:
(a) the transport company which has recruited the person concerned, to which the person concerned is de facto fully available for an indefinite period, which exercises effective control over the person concerned and which actually bears the wage costs; or
(b) the company which has formally concluded an employment contract with the truck driver and which, by agreement with the transport company referred to under (a), paid the worker a salary and paid contributions in respect thereof in the Member State where that company has its registered office and not in the Member State where the transport company referred to in (a) has its registered office;
(c) both the company under (a) and the company under (b)?
In the event that, in circumstances such as those of the cases in the main proceedings, the employer is regarded as being the undertaking referred to in Question 1A(b) and in Question 1B(b):
Do the specific conditions under which employers, such as temporary employment agencies and other intermediaries, can invoke the exceptions to the country-of-employment principle set out in Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and in Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 also apply by analogy, wholly or in part, to the cases in the main proceedings for the purposes of Article 14(2)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and of Article 13(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004?
In the event that, in circumstances such as those of the cases in the main proceedings, the employer is regarded as being the company referred to in Question 1A(b) and in Question 1B(b), and Question 2 is answered in the negative:
Do the facts and circumstances set out in this request constitute a situation that is to be interpreted as an abuse of EU law and/or an abuse of EFTA law? If so, what is the consequence thereof?
____________
1 Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416).
2 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).