INPS (the Italian Social Security Institution), with its message no. 4805 dated 22 December 2020, provided clarifications on the issuance of A1/E101 social security certificate for periods of employment in the United Kingdom, concluding after the end of the transition period, namely 31 December 2020.
In particular, INPS specified that requests to issue Form A1 for periods of employment with start date prior to 31 December 2020 and end date thereafter will be accepted and the respective portable A1 documents will be valid until the end of the certified period, if the same are received by 31 December 2020.
INPS has also clarified that requests to issue A1/E101 Forms, which have been rejected as they relate to periods commencing from 1 January 2021, will be automatically rectified by way of the issuance of new certificates for the entire requested period, provided that there is seamless continuity in the applicable legislation already certified by the A1/E101 forms. The regional INPS departments will be responsible for communicating to the social security institution present in the United Kingdom that a new A1/E101 form has been issued for rectification of the period.
Finally, INPS has clarified that E101 certificates dated after 31 December 2020 may also be issued, if the conditions are in place, for citizens of Third Countries, notwithstanding that, for secondments, the maximum limit of duration for the certified period is 12 months.
INPS, with its message no. 2797 of 14 July 2020 provided clarifications related to private and public workers, as well as NASPI (Italian unemployment) beneficiaries, who work for brief periods in Germany.
Specifically, for private employees, they first underlined that the applicable legislation, based on the provisions contained in article 13, paragraph 1 of the EC Regulation 883/2004, is that of the State of residence of the worker as long as substantial work is performed there. Moreover, for the purposes of determining the applicable legislation, marginal employment should not be considered, i.e. work that is not very significant in terms of time and remuneration.
The message in question clarifies that if the worker is employed in Italy and performs a job of a marginal nature in Germany or one that is not substantial, the applicable legislation is solely Italian with the consequent obligation for the worker to inform INPS of his employment situation. Failure to comply will result in forfeiture of recognition of the German insurance period if considered as marginal by INPS.
The fragmented and often cryptic regulatory framework of reference is creating long delays and operational difficulties in accessing the redundancy fund in derogation. Let us take stock.
Law provisions, ministerial decrees, circulars and framework agreements have regulated in a not always consistent way the concrete modalities of access to the redundancy fund in derogation in the context of the current epidemiological emergency and, in particular, in relation to the actual existence of an obligation of a company trade union agreement in order to be able to access wage supplementation.
Read here the original version of the article.
Source: Agendadigitale.eu
The territorially competent Court, by judgment No. 106/2019 published on 3 February 2020, stated that the existence of A1 certificates creates a presumption of regularity of contributions of the posted worker.
The facts
An Airline company whose registered office is outside Italy brought an action before the Italian National Social Security Institute (‘INPS’), as it received a single inspection report contesting the non-payment of social security contributions in Italy for 31 employees.
In particular, the INPS, recalling the principle of the lex loci laboris for which workers employed in the territory of a Member State must be subject to the legislation of that State, objected that:
The decision of the Court
The judge hearing the case upheld the Airline’s appeal, following the European case law produced by the same company, according to which: the existence of A1 certificates creates a presumption of regularity of contributions of the posted worker.
The Judge, in arguing their decision, proceeded to say that the INPS has no jurisdiction to rule on the whether or not the A1 certificates are valid.
According to the Judge, on the basis of European law, the only instrument recognised to the social security institution is the dialogue and conciliation procedure, according to which the aforementioned should have previously contacted the Authority of the foreign country to put it in a position to assess how correct the A1 forms issued were.
In the event of failure to reach agreement, the INPS should have referred the matter to the European Administrative Commission, which, in spite of the forms, has nevertheless charged the contribution omitted in Italy.
In view of the above, the Judge of first instance declared the claim brought by INPS unfounded, by offsetting the costs of the proceedings.
