Generally, Workers are subject to the social security scheme of the Member State in which they work

06Sep,,en,The digitization concept is not uniform,,es,Digitization is much more than the transition from paper to electronic communication,,es,It is a process of continuous improvement,,es,It is to optimize the delivery of goods and services,,es,creating new business models and strengthening structures that support the new management,,es,Digitization is the interaction of the tools,,es,Tasks,,es,flows designed to better serve customers and offer constant connectivity between the supplier and the customer,,es,law firms are engaged in a market where legal knowledge,,es,technology and process are the real product,,es,Law Firms,,es,as usual,,es
2018

Generally, Workers are subject to the social security scheme of the Member State in which they work

El Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea, en sentencia sobre en el asunto C 527/16, declara que en el supuesto de que un trabajador desplazado por su empleador a otro Estado miembro para llevar a cabo un trabajo sea sustituido por otro trabajador desplazado, a su vez, another employer, the second worker may not be subject to the legislation of the Member State in which your employer normally carries out its activities.

The Court states that, como norma general, Workers are subject to the social security scheme of the Member State in which they work, especialmente para garantizar del modo más eficaz posible la equal treatment of all persons working in the territory of that Member State.

The only EU legislature contemplates the possibility that a posted worker remains subject to the social security scheme of the Member State in which your employer normally pursues its activities when certain requirements are met. The legislature has excluded that this may happen when the posted worker is replacing another person. According to the Court, such substitution occurs when a worker posted by his employer to carry out work in another Member State is replaced by another worker displaced, a su vez, por otro empresario. Carece de relevancia a este respecto el hecho de que los empresarios de los dos trabajadores de que se trate tengan su domicilio social en el mismo Estado miembro o de que mantengan posibles vínculos personales u organizativos.

Caso concreto

La resolución hace referencia a la empresa austriaca Alpenrind which operated a slaughterhouse in Salzburg. Between 2012 and 2014 Alpenrind he used for cutting and packaging of meat displaced workers to Austria by the Hungarian company Martimpex. Antes y después de dicho período el trabajo era llevado a cabo por another Hungarian company workers, Martin-Meat.

Respecto de unos 250 trabajadores desplazados by Martimpex between 1 February 2012 and 13 December 2013, Hungarian social security institution issued (in some cases backdated and other cases in which workers subject to compulsory insurance Austrian had already been determined by the Austrian social security institution) certificados A1 que acreditaban la aplicación del régimen húngaro de Seguridad Social. La resolución de la institución austriaca de Seguridad Social por la que se determinaba laWorkers subject to the Austrian compulsory insurance was challenged before the Austrian courts.

En este contexto, el Administrative Court (Contentious Administrative Tribunal Supremo, Austria) solicitó al Tribunal de Justicia que precisase las normas de la Unión en materia de coordinación de los sistemas de Seguridad Social and, concretamente, the binding effect of A1 certificate.

Conclusiones

In its judgment, el Tribunal de Justicia declara que los certificados A1 expedidos por la institución competente de un Estado miembro (in the present case, Hungary) vinculan tanto a las instituciones de Seguridad Social como a los órganos jurisdiccionales del Estado miembro en el que se lleve a cabo el trabajo (Austria) whereas such certificates are not withdrawn or invalidated by the Member State in which they were issued (Hungary). Lo mismo se aplica cuando, as in the present case, the competent authorities of the two Member States have submitted the matter to the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems and its conclusion that the certificates had been improperly issued and should be withdrawn. The Court observes on this point that the role of the Administrative Commission in this context is limited to reconciling the positions of the competent authorities of the Member States have raised the question you, and that its conclusions have the value of an opinion.

El TJUE solo contempla la posibilidad de que un trabajador desplazado siga sujeto al régimen de Seguridad Social del Estado miembro en que su empleador ejerza normalmente sus actividades cuando se cumplan determinados requisitos. Están excluidos de las excepciones los supuestos de trabajadores desplazados en sustitución de otro trabajador. According to the Court, such substitution occurs when a worker posted by his employer to carry out work in another Member State is replaced by another worker displaced, a su vez, por otro empresario. Carece de relevancia a este respecto el hecho de que los empresarios de los dos trabajadores de que se trate tengan su domicilio social en el mismo Estado miembro o de que mantengan posibles vínculos personales u organizativos.

noticias.juridicas.com