Skip to content In November 2025, the French Court de Cassation clarified in case number 23-10.637 the scope of Regulation 593/2008 (Rome 1) and Regulation 883/2004 (Social Security) in the context of cross-border employment.
Facts
A French company hired an Italian national, resident in Italy, to perform a service in Belgium. Her employment was divided in two contracts: One ‘International’ contract governed by French Law, and a ‘local’ arrangement for specific employment conditions governed by Belgian Law.
The employee received her salary divided in two: One part went to a French bank account, while the other part went to a Belgian bank account. According to Regulation 883/2004, the social-security obligations fell under Belgian Law.
After the employee resigned, she sought a lump-sum indemnity for concealed employment under Article L.8223-1 of the French Labour Code.
Legal background
- Article 3 of EU Regulation 593/2008 (Rome 1) establishes the freedom to choose the legal jurisdiction governing the contract or part of a contract.
- Article 11(1) and (3)(a) of EU Regulation 883/2004 establishes that an employee falls only under one jurisdiction regarding social security obligations ; and that ‘a person pursuing an activity as an employed or self-employed person in a Member State shall be subject to the legislation of that Member State’
- Article L.8223-1 of the French Labour Code provides that, after an employment relationship ends, in the case that the employer did not declare the work of the employee, thus refusing them social security contributions, the employee would receive a lump-sum indemnity worth 6 months of their salary.
Issue
After the French Court of Appeal sided with the employee, the French company (the employer) asked the Court de Cassation to squash the judgment, arguing that Regulation 883/2004 does not apply to the ‘international’ contract ruled by French Law. Consequently, the French rules on social security ie French Labour Code would not apply in this case.
Ruling
The Court de Cassation confirmed the right to choose the legal jurisdiction governing part of a contract under Article 3 of the EU Regulation 593/2008 (Rome 1).
Following, the Court ruled that the EU Regulation 883/2004 establishes that the social security obligations of the employer and employee are governed under Belgian Law.
Therefore, the issue on concealed employment falls under Belgian Law, thus a Belgian judge must decide on it.
Impact
The rules of Regulation 593/2008 and Regulation 883/2004 are confirmed in French Law, and ‘French concealed-employment sanctions cannot be used to address social-security evasion governed by another Member State’s legislation’. Therefore, the competent authority must judge such issues.