For a British citizen who has settled in France, a deduction labelled CSG or CRDS on a French pension statement can look incompatible with a UK-issued S1. The apparent contradiction is often real, but it cannot be resolved by showing the S1 alone. The S1 identifies the State responsible for healthcare costs; it does not make a UK State Pension exempt from French income tax, and it does not automatically settle every question about social contributions.

CSG means contribution sociale généralisée, the general social contribution. CRDS means contribution au remboursement de la dette sociale, the social-debt repayment contribution. For pensioners, the decisive issue is usually whether France may treat the pensioner as being covered by a French compulsory health-insurance scheme while the pension is paid. A valid United Kingdom S1, properly registered in France and covering the relevant period, can be powerful evidence that the UK remains the competent State for healthcare.

This guide separates three matters that are frequently confused: income tax on the UK pension, CSG/CRDS on replacement income, and healthcare registration. It explains how to test the deduction, assemble proof, claim repayment, and choose the correct route if the first request is refused. The analysis is directed at a person resident in France who receives a UK State Pension or another UK pension and relies on an S1 after Brexit.

I. Why can CSG and CRDS be charged on a UK State Pension in France despite an S1?

A. What does an S1 change about French pension contributions?

An S1 is a portable healthcare document. In practical terms, it confirms that a person living in one country is entitled to healthcare there at the expense of another country. A British pensioner normally requests the document from the United Kingdom authority responsible for healthcare costs and registers it with the local CPAM (caisse primaire d’assurance maladie, the local primary health-insurance fund) in France. The registration gives the French administration a record of the competent State. The GOV.UK guidance on healthcare in France explains the S1 registration process and identifies the UK healthcare authority that can help with an S1.

After Brexit, the applicable coordination instrument is not determined simply by nationality. The Withdrawal Agreement can protect a person whose situation falls within its scope, while the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA) contains the later coordination rules for other situations. The TCA’s social-security protocol is published in the official EUR-Lex text. The relevant facts include the date the person moved, the person’s residence, the pension or benefit giving rise to healthcare entitlement, any work in France or the UK, and which institution issued the S1.

The French starting point is article L. 136-1 of the Code de la sécurité sociale (Social Security Code). It opens with the following rule:

“Il est institué une contribution sociale sur les revenus d’activité et sur les revenus de remplacement.”

In English, this creates a social contribution on employment income and revenus de remplacement, meaning replacement income such as pensions. The same article identifies the persons concerned by the health-insurance condition. It refers to people who are domiciled in France for income-tax purposes and are supported, in any capacity, by a French compulsory health-insurance scheme:

“à la charge, à quelque titre que ce soit, d’un régime obligatoire français d’assurance maladie”

That phrase is not a slogan about every resident. It is a legal condition that must be applied to the person’s actual social-security position. Article L. 136-1 should be read with article L. 136-1-2, which deals with contributions on replacement income and the income thresholds that can produce an exemption or a lower rate, and article L. 136-8, which sets the CSG rates and categories. The official Légifrance section on CSG and replacement income and the official text of article L. 136-8 must be checked for the tax year concerned. A pensioner should not infer the applicable rate from a neighbour’s statement.

This article sits within the broader pension cluster covered by our guide to UK pensions in France after Brexit, including the tax treaty and declaration duties. That guide addresses the income-tax and reporting questions; the present article focuses on the narrower health-affiliation and CSG/CRDS refund issue.

CRDS is a separate contribution with a linked base and collection framework. Article 14 of Ordonnance No. 96-50 of 24 January 1996 states:

“Cette contribution est soumise aux conditions prévues aux articles L. 136-1-1 à L. 136-4 du même code.”

The English meaning is that the CRDS follows the statutory conditions set out for the corresponding social contributions. Article 19 of the same ordinance, in the official consolidated ordinance, is also relevant to the rate. The pension statement remains essential: it shows which contribution was actually taken, its percentage, the period and the payer.

The S1 matters because the health-insurance condition is not decided by residence alone. Article L. 160-1 of the Social Security Code provides the general French healthcare rule for a person who works or, without working, resides in France in a stable and regular manner. The current Légifrance text of article L. 160-1 must, however, be applied subject to international coordination rules. A person covered at the expense of the UK may live in France without becoming a person whose healthcare is funded by a French compulsory scheme for the period covered by the S1.

The French public service for international social security, CLEISS, expresses the practical distinction in its guidance for pensioners. Where the S1 is issued by the State paying the pension and that State remains responsible for healthcare, the guidance says:

“aucune cotisation n’est prélevée sur vos pensions de retraite françaises”

That sentence means that the French pension should not carry the relevant French health-linked deductions in the described situation. It is not a universal promise for every British pensioner. The CLEISS page on retirement and healthcare coordination between France and the United Kingdom distinguishes an S1 issued by France from an S1 issued by the other State. It also explains why the identity of the issuing State and the person’s actual affiliation matter.

In a typical challenge, the argument is therefore cumulative:

• the pensioner is resident in France;
• the United Kingdom issued an S1 for the relevant healthcare entitlement;
• the S1 covers the period in which the CSG or CRDS was deducted;
• the S1 was registered, or the pensioner can prove that registration was requested and accepted;
• the person was not working in France and was not otherwise affiliated to a French compulsory health scheme during the same period; and
• the deduction concerns the pension as replacement income, rather than a separate charge on rent, capital gains or another source of wealth.

If all those points are established, the S1 is not merely a general healthcare card. It is evidence supporting the contention that the French health-insurance condition in article L. 136-1 has not been met. If the S1 was issued by France, or if the person began French employment, the analysis may lead in the opposite direction. The S1 cannot be used to rewrite the competent-State decision.

There is also a tax distinction. Under article 18 of the France–UK double-taxation convention, pensions paid in consideration of past employment are generally taxable in the State of residence, subject to special rules for government service. The official GOV.UK text of the 2008 France–UK convention is the source to read alongside the pension type and the person’s residence. A UK State Pension can therefore be taxable in France even if the pensioner has a strong CSG/CRDS claim. An S1 allocates healthcare costs; it does not make the pension income-tax-free.

B. How can you tell whether the deduction is actually unlawful?

The first task is to identify the document on which the money appears. A French pension statement may show CSG, CRDS and sometimes CASA, the additional solidarity contribution for autonomy. A French income-tax assessment may show a social contribution on a different category of income. A UK payment statement may show deductions made in the United Kingdom. Each document has a different issuer and potentially a different remedy. A complaint sent only to the CPAM may not recover an amount deducted by a French pension fund; a message sent only to HMRC cannot correct a French social contribution.

Use the following four-way test before writing a claim.

Fact pattern	What it usually means	Immediate action
UK-issued S1, registered in France, no French work	A substantial basis exists to challenge a French health-linked deduction on the pension, subject to the exact period and pension type.	Obtain the S1, CPAM registration proof and a statement showing each deduction.
UK-issued S1 but no registration record	The underlying entitlement may exist, but the administration may say that the French affiliation record was never corrected.	Ask the UK authority to confirm the S1 and ask CPAM for a written registration or refusal decision.
French employment or self-employment during the period	France may be the competent State for healthcare because of the activity, even if the person also receives a UK pension.	Map the activity, payroll and affiliation dates before claiming a blanket refund.
Charge concerns rent, investments or capital gains	This is not automatically the same issue as CSG/CRDS on a pension. Non-resident and treaty rules can differ again.	Separate the income category and read the applicable tax notice and official tax guidance.

For a pension, check the person’s revenu fiscal de référence (RFR), the French reference tax income shown on the relevant assessment, as well as the number of tax parts and the tax year. Article L. 136-1-2 contains the statutory structure for replacement income, while article L. 136-8 provides the rate framework. A person can be exempt because of income thresholds, charged at a reduced rate, or charged at the normal rate. A successful S1 argument is different: it challenges the health-affiliation basis itself. Both arguments can be raised in the alternative, but the evidence must keep them separate.

Do not rely on an internet explanation of CSG for non-residents without checking the income category. The official impots.gouv.fr answer on contributions for non-residents is useful for property and investment income, including the interaction with affiliation to a non-French scheme. It does not automatically answer the question of a French tax resident’s pension. Likewise, the Service-Public information on CSG and CRDS on wealth and investment income should not be transplanted to replacement income without reading the heading and statutory references.

The strongest preliminary file contains a short timeline. Record the date the pensioner became resident in France, the date the S1 was issued, the date it was sent to CPAM, the date CPAM acknowledged or registered it, the date any French work ended or began, and the first pension statement with the disputed deduction. Add every French tax assessment relevant to the period. This timeline often reveals that the S1 was valid but registered late, or that the deduction started after a change in affiliation.

Ask a second question about the payer. The UK State Pension itself may be paid by the UK government, while a French pension may be paid by an organisation such as an old-age insurance fund. The S1 does not turn a French pension into a UK payment; it may instead determine whether the French pension is subject to certain French social contributions. If a private UK occupational pension is involved, identify it separately from the UK State Pension and check whether the S1 covers the same health entitlement. One S1 file can support several pension deductions, but the claim should list each payer and each line.

Finally, calculate rather than estimate. Suppose a statement shows a €20,000 annual pension base, CSG at 8.3% and CRDS at 0.5%. The arithmetic illustration would be €1,660 of CSG plus €100 of CRDS, or €1,760 in total. That is only an illustration of the figures printed on a statement. The real rate may be lower or zero because of the RFR, may change by tax year, or may apply to a different base. A claim should reproduce the actual statements and show the disputed total month by month.

II. How do you recover CSG and CRDS deducted from your UK pension?

A. What evidence and complaint should you submit?

A refund request works best when it asks for a correction of a defined deduction, not when it simply says that Brexit or the S1 should cancel all French charges. Prepare a document bundle with an index and page numbers. The first page should state the person’s name, French address, tax number if the complaint concerns a tax assessment, social-security number if relevant, the pension payer, the period and the total claimed. The request should say whether it concerns CSG, CRDS, CASA or more than one contribution.

Include the following evidence:

• a full copy of the UK-issued S1, including the issuing institution, reference number, issue date and covered person;
• proof that the S1 was sent to or registered by CPAM, such as an acknowledgement, attestation or written decision;
• the UK authority’s confirmation of which State was responsible for healthcare during every disputed month;
• French pension statements showing the gross base, each percentage, each euro amount and the payer;
• French tax assessments showing the RFR and tax parts for the relevant years;
• proof of French residence and the date residence began;
• employment, self-employment and payroll evidence showing whether the person did or did not fall into a French compulsory scheme; and
• any prior correspondence from the pension fund, CPAM, URSSAF or tax office.

Do not send an original passport, an original S1 or irreplaceable documents. Send copies through the channel identified by the institution and keep evidence of delivery. If the administration asks for a French translation, use a translation that preserves the S1 reference, dates and technical terms. The article’s English wording can help a British reader understand the issue, but the receiving French authority may require French-language supporting material.

The legal explanation should proceed in a disciplined order. First, state the factual healthcare position: the UK issued the S1 and remains the competent State for the relevant period. Second, state that article L. 136-1 links the contribution on replacement income to the statutory conditions, including the French compulsory-health affiliation condition. Third, explain why the person’s S1 and CPAM record show that the condition was not met, or why the administration must correct its affiliation record before reassessing the deduction. Fourth, identify the exact statements and amounts. Fifth, ask for both a prospective correction and repayment of the past amounts.

Article L. 136-5 of the Social Security Code sets out the recovery framework for the contributions covered by articles L. 136-1 to L. 136-4. The official Légifrance text of article L. 136-5 is therefore a useful citation when asking which body must process the correction. Article 14 of the 1996 ordinance should be cited for CRDS. If the pension fund says it cannot decide because another body collected the contribution, request a written routing explanation and send the claim to the named collector as well. Keep the same schedule of months and amounts so the two bodies cannot answer different questions.

If the amount appears on a French income-tax assessment rather than a pension statement, use the tax administration’s secure channel and identify the assessment number. The claim may be a réclamation contentieuse, meaning a formal tax complaint seeking correction or repayment. Article R* 196-1 of the Livre des procédures fiscales (Tax Procedure Book) contains time-limit rules for tax complaints, with distinctions depending on the tax and the way it was assessed or withheld. Read the official Légifrance text of article R* 196-1 for the relevant year and do not assume that the pension-deduction deadline and the tax-assessment deadline are identical. Filing early protects the position while the competent route is being confirmed.

A claim can ask the authority to provide four answers:

1. Which legal provision was used to deduct CSG or CRDS from each payment?
2. Which French health-insurance affiliation did the authority believe applied to the pensioner for each month?
3. Was the UK S1 recorded, and if not, what specific document is missing?
4. What amount will be repaid, what future instruction will be sent to the payer, and what review or appeal route applies if the request is refused?

This wording matters because a general refusal such as “all French residents pay CSG” does not answer the S1 issue. Nor does a general statement that “the S1 covers healthcare” answer whether the person was working in France. The administration should identify the legal and factual basis for the disputed months.

Keep a separate CPAM file. If the S1 has not been registered, ask CPAM for a written decision and give the UK issuer an opportunity to confirm the document directly. The GOV.UK healthcare guidance directs people to the relevant UK healthcare authority for S1 questions. A CPAM registration problem can be the reason a contribution was triggered even where the underlying UK entitlement is sound. Correcting the registration can prevent future deductions, but it does not by itself calculate or recover past amounts; the pension payer or collecting body must still be asked to correct the payment history.

Include a short calculation schedule. For every month, show the gross pension base, CSG percentage, CSG amount, CRDS percentage, CRDS amount, any CASA amount and the total. Mark amounts already repaid or corrected. If the payer used a reduced rate in one year and a standard rate in another, do not combine them. A transparent schedule makes it possible to agree the principle first and arithmetic second.

There may be more than one legal argument. The primary argument can be that the person was not affiliated to a French compulsory health scheme because the UK remained competent under the S1. The alternative can be that, even if French affiliation is found, the RFR places the person in an exempt or reduced-rate category under article L. 136-1-2 and article L. 136-8. A careful request says which argument is primary and asks the authority to examine the alternative. It should not claim that a low RFR and an S1 are the same exemption.

B. Which court or authority should you approach after refusal?

The route after refusal depends on what was deducted and who made the decision. This is where many otherwise well-supported claims lose time. A deduction from replacement income can be a social-security dispute; a levy assessed as a tax on wealth or investment income can fall under a different administrative route. The label printed on the statement, the legal notice and the collecting body must be preserved before choosing a court.

The Conseil d’État addressed the jurisdictional distinction in its decision of 4 June 2007, No. 269449. In the official Légifrance decision, it states that disputes concerning contributions on the income categories covered by articles L. 136-1 to L. 136-4 “relèvent du contentieux de la sécurité sociale”. In English, those disputes fall within social-security litigation. That reference is particularly important when the disputed CSG/CRDS was withheld from a pension as replacement income. It is not a reason to send every French social levy to the same court: the income category and assessment mechanism remain decisive.

For a social-security dispute, the next step will generally involve the judicial court’s social division, known as the pôle social du tribunal judiciaire, but the refusal letter and current procedural instructions should be checked before filing. The court’s identity, pre-action formalities and time limit can depend on the body that made the decision. Ask the institution for a reasoned written decision, the date of notification and the appeal instructions. Keep the envelope, electronic timestamp or delivery receipt.

If the amount was assessed through a tax notice, a complaint to the tax administration may be required first, followed by the route identified in the response. Do not describe a pension deduction as a wealth-income levy merely because the word CSG appears on both. The official Service-Public page on social contributions itself distinguishes categories of income. A French tax lawyer can also check whether the complaint concerns the assessment, the withholding, or an error in the social-security information transferred to the tax administration.

French and European coordination principles can assist the reasoning, but they must be used precisely. In a decision of 7 June 2024, No. 472858, the Conseil d’État quoted the rule that persons covered by the relevant European regulation are subject to the legislation of only one Member State:

“les personnes auxquelles le présent règlement est applicable ne sont soumises qu’à la législation d’un seul Etat membre.”

The official Légifrance decision No. 472858 concerned the European coordination regulation cited in that case. A British citizen cannot simply treat that EU regulation as if it governed every post-Brexit situation. The post-Brexit analysis must identify the Withdrawal Agreement or TCA provision that applies. The value of the decision is the clear explanation of the single-applicable-legislation principle; the source of the person’s actual entitlement remains the applicable UK–France instrument and the S1 record.

That distinction also explains why a successful tax-treaty argument may not repay CSG/CRDS. The France–UK convention allocates taxing rights over pension income. The S1 and social-security coordination rules allocate healthcare responsibility. CSG and CRDS sit in the second analysis when they are levied on replacement income. Use the GOV.UK pension-tax guidance for the UK tax position, but do not ask HMRC to determine the French social-security court route.

There are three practical escalation paths:

• The S1 record is missing or rejected: obtain the UK institution’s confirmation, request the CPAM decision in writing, correct the healthcare record, and then ask the pension payer to recalculate the affected periods.
• The S1 is accepted but the pension payer refuses the refund: challenge the written decision through the social-security route indicated by the payer, citing article L. 136-1, the relevant CRDS provision and Conseil d’État No. 269449.
• The deduction is on a tax assessment or relates to another income category: file the appropriate tax complaint within the applicable deadline, identify the assessment and use the tax administration’s response to determine any further court route.

Do not wait for an informal telephone assurance before preserving a deadline. A call can help identify the correct department, but it is not a reliable substitute for a written complaint. State the disputed months, attach the evidence, request a written response and retain proof of submission. If the authority says the claim is late, ask it to identify the precise statutory provision and calculation of the deadline. Article R* 196-1 may apply to a tax complaint, while a social-security deduction can involve a different procedural framework.

Review the result after any correction. A future statement should show that the disputed contribution has stopped or that the correct rate has been applied. Check whether the refund covers every month, including months paid by a different pension fund. Compare the revised annual tax material with the pension statements. If only the deduction has stopped but the past amounts have not been repaid, the past-refund request remains open. If the administration refunds only one contribution, ask separately about CRDS, CASA and any interest or adjustment that the applicable rules provide.

A British pensioner should also avoid creating a new inconsistency while pursuing the claim. If French work begins, the S1 may cease to determine the person’s health coverage for the same period. If residence changes, the competent State may change. If the UK pension is suspended or a new pension starts, the S1 entitlement may need a fresh confirmation. Report material changes to the relevant authorities and keep a versioned timeline. The purpose of the claim is to correct the months supported by evidence, not to obtain a permanent exemption detached from the person’s future status.

The strongest file is therefore narrow and auditable: one person, one pension or clearly separated pension payers, one S1 period, one health-affiliation question, one schedule of deductions and one identified remedy. It cites the statutory text and official guidance without treating a general Brexit article as a decision on the individual case.

Conclusion

A UK State Pension can remain taxable in France while CSG or CRDS is nevertheless challengeable. The two questions use different legal systems. The S1 is relevant because it can show that the United Kingdom, rather than France, was responsible for healthcare during the disputed period. That evidence must be matched to the issue date, CPAM record, absence or presence of French work, pension type and exact deduction.

Start with the statement, identify the payer, obtain the UK and CPAM records, calculate the disputed months and submit a written request for both prospective correction and repayment. Use the correct tax or social-security route, preserve the deadline and obtain a written refusal before escalating. A low RFR may create a separate rate or exemption argument; it should not be confused with the S1 argument. Careful separation of those issues gives a British resident in France a realistic route to challenge an incorrect deduction without making an unsafe claim about every pensioner.

Need a quick opinion on your case

A telephone consultation within 48 hours with a lawyer from the firm.

Call +33 6 46 60 58 22 or use the contact form to discuss your S1, pension statement and proposed claim.