20231204-KPMG_Global-European_Union_–_Court_Rules_that_A1_Certificate_Can_Be_Withdrawn_3页_266kb

Key Findings from the CJEU Ruling on A1 Certificate Withdrawal

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued a ruling on 16 November 2023 (Case C-422/22) addressing the conditions for withdrawal of an A1 certificate for social security. The following summary outlines the main points.

The ruling addresses a case involving a Polish authority that issued an A1 certificate for a self-employed businessman working under a contract with a Polish company that required services in France. Upon review, the Polish authority concluded the conditions for issuing the A1 certificate under rules for multi-state work were not met, leading to its withdrawal. The CJEU ruled that a member state can withdraw an A1 certificate unilaterally without notifying the other member state, initiating a dialogue, or ensuring prior affiliation to the other member state's social security system.

Under EU regulations, the withdrawal of an A1 certificate does not trigger the need for conciliation procedures. This means member states have the power to annul certificates based on their own assessment of non-compliance. Withdrawal can have retroactive effects, potentially leading to a loss of social security rights in the worst-case scenario. In the best case, it may result in administrative burdens and corrections but no significant rights loss.

Employers and mobile workers are advised to ensure that the conditions for an A1 certificate are fully met during its validity period. Failure to affiliate correctly with the competent member state can allow a withdrawal, which may result in social security disqualifications. The decision emphasizes that social security rights are derived from EU regulations themselves, not solely from the A1 certificate.

Citation details: The ruling stems from Regulation 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems. For further information, refer to the CJEU judgment and consult relevant authorities or professionals.

This case highlights the importance of rigorous verification of social security coverage during assignments across member states to avoid administrative errors.