To this day, the defendant is still the manager of two companies specializing in the assembly of metal structures. The parent company is based in Luxembourg, and its subsidiary in Thionville.
In France, the subsidiary has no employees, no premises, just an address hosted by an accountant. “We have few markets in France”, justifies the septuagenarian. There is one precisely that poses a problem for the administration and especially the justice system: that of the cultural center of Villerupt, l’Arche, a site for which the parent company has seconded several employees.
“The problem, camped President Lambert, is that there were several irregularities noted. “
Exclusion from public procurement required
First, the company did not ask for the agreement of the employees who did not benefit from an amendment to their employment contract. Second, secondment is possible only if the company calls on technical staff or experts, which is not the case in this case. Third, the company suddenly did not pay contributions in France, so its employees were at work for months on French soil. “Unfair competition and misguided legislation” points out the representative of the prosecution.
As such, she is claiming against the Luxembourger twelve months suspended prison sentence, a tort fine of € 5,000 and a ban on practicing in France, for a period to be determined. Concerning companies, a fine of € 75,000 is required for each of the two, also including the exclusion from the public procurement procedure in France.
Deliberated on October 25.