17.5.2016

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/7

(Case C-89/16)

(2016/C 175/06)

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Radosław Szoja

Respondent: Sociálna poisťovňa

Questions referred

1.May Article 13(3)of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, in conjunction with the right to social security benefits and social services enshrined in Article 34(1) and (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in the circumstances of the dispute in the main proceedings, be interpreted without taking into account the clarifications in Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, and without any possibility of consequently applying the procedure mentioned in Article 16 of the abovementioned regulation, in such a way that the shortness of the working time or the low level of remuneration of employees has no effect on the choice of the national law applicable when a person is both employed and self-employed, in other words: the abovementioned Article 14 of the implementing Regulation does not apply to the interpretation of Article 13(3) of the basic Regulation?

2.If a negative answer is given to the first question, is it the case, if there is a conflict when two regulations are applied, that is to say: conflict between the basic regulation and the implementing regulation, which in the present case are Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, that the national court may assess the provisions thereof on the basis of their legislative force, or on the basis of their rank in the hierarchy of Union law?

3.May the interpretation of the provisions of the Basic Regulation adopted by the Administrative Commission under Article 72 of the Basic Regulation be considered a binding interpretation made by an EU institution, from which the national court may not depart, which at the same time precludes a reference for a preliminary ruling, or is that interpretation merely one of the permissible interpretations of EU law that the national court must take into account as one of the factors underlying its decision?

Language of the case: Slovak

* * *

(1) OJ 2004 L 166, p. 1.

(2) OJ 2009 L 284, p. 1.