EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62016CA0359
Case C-359/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie — Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against Ömer Altun, Abubekir Altun, Sedrettin Maksutogullari, Yunus Altun, Absa NV, M. Sedat BVBA, Alnur BVBA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Migrant workers — Social security — Applicable legislation — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 14(1)(a) — Posted workers — Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 — Article 11(1)(a) — E 101 certificate — Probative value — Certificate fraudulently obtained or relied on)
Case C-359/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie — Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against Ömer Altun, Abubekir Altun, Sedrettin Maksutogullari, Yunus Altun, Absa NV, M. Sedat BVBA, Alnur BVBA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Migrant workers — Social security — Applicable legislation — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 14(1)(a) — Posted workers — Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 — Article 11(1)(a) — E 101 certificate — Probative value — Certificate fraudulently obtained or relied on)
Case C-359/16: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie — Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against Ömer Altun, Abubekir Altun, Sedrettin Maksutogullari, Yunus Altun, Absa NV, M. Sedat BVBA, Alnur BVBA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Migrant workers — Social security — Applicable legislation — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 14(1)(a) — Posted workers — Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 — Article 11(1)(a) — E 101 certificate — Probative value — Certificate fraudulently obtained or relied on)
OJ C 123, 9.4.2018, p. 3–3
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 06/02/2018
- Date lodged:
- 24/06/2016
- Author:
- Court of Justice
- Form:
- Judicial information
- Authentic language:
- Dutch
- Type of procedure:
- Reference for a preliminary ruling
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Case affecting:
-
- Related EU case-law document 62016CJ0359
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
- EUROVOC descriptor:
|
9.4.2018 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 123/3 |
Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 February 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie — Belgium) — Criminal proceedings against Ömer Altun, Abubekir Altun, Sedrettin Maksutogullari, Yunus Altun, Absa NV, M. Sedat BVBA, Alnur BVBA
(Case C-359/16) (1)
((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Migrant workers - Social security - Applicable legislation - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 14(1)(a) - Posted workers - Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 - Article 11(1)(a) - E 101 certificate - Probative value - Certificate fraudulently obtained or relied on))
(2018/C 123/03)
Language of the case: Dutch
Referring court
Hof van Cassatie
Parties in the main criminal proceedings
Ömer Altun, Abubekir Altun, Sedrettin Maksutogullari, Yunus Altun, Absa NV, M. Sedat BVBA, Alnur BVBA
Other party to the proceedings: Openbaar Ministerie
Operative part of the judgment
Article 14(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 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, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 631/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, and Article 11(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down rules for the application of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, must be interpreted as meaning that, when an institution of a Member State to which workers have been posted makes an application to the institution that issued E 101 certificates for the review and withdrawal of those certificates in the light of evidence, collected in the course of a judicial investigation, which supports the conclusion that those certificates were fraudulently obtained or relied on, and the issuing institution fails to take that evidence into consideration for the purpose of reviewing the grounds for the issue of those certificates, a national court may, in the context of proceedings brought against persons suspected of having used posted workers ostensibly covered by such certificates, disregard those certificates if, on the basis of that evidence and with due regard to the safeguards inherent in the right to a fair trial which must be granted to those persons, it finds the existence of such fraud.
