# C_2021163EN.01001201.xml

| 3.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 163/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 163/12

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Wien (Austria) lodged on 1 February 2021 — FK

(Case C-58/21)

(2021/C 163/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Wien

Parties to the main proceedings

Complainant: FK

Respondent authority: Rechtsanwaltskammer Wien

Questions referred

| 1. | How is Article 13(2)(b) 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 (1) to be interpreted where, from a quantitative point of view, the centre of interest of the activities of a person is in a non-Member State in which that person also resides and, furthermore, that person also pursues an activity in two Member States (Federal Republic of Germany and Austria), the activity in the two Member States being distributed in such a way that the bulk of the activity clearly takes place in one Member State (in this specific case, the Federal Republic of Germany)?
  In the event that that provision is interpreted to the effect that Austria has competence, [the following question] is [asked]: |
| --- | --- |

1.

How is Article 13(2)(b) 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 (1) to be interpreted where, from a quantitative point of view, the centre of interest of the activities of a person is in a non-Member State in which that person also resides and, furthermore, that person also pursues an activity in two Member States (Federal Republic of Germany and Austria), the activity in the two Member States being distributed in such a way that the bulk of the activity clearly takes place in one Member State (in this specific case, the Federal Republic of Germany)?

In the event that that provision is interpreted to the effect that Austria has competence, [the following question] is [asked]:

| 2. | [Are] the provision of Paragraph 50(2)(2)(c)(aa) of the Rechtsanwaltsordnung (Code of Lawyers) (2) and the provision of Paragraph 26(1)(8) of the Satzung Teil A 2018 (2018 Statute for Part A) based thereon permissible under EU law or do they infringe EU law and the rights guaranteed under EU law by requiring, as a condition for the award of a retirement pension, that the right to practise law in Austria and abroad be waived (Paragraph 50(2)(2)(c)(aa)) or that the right to practise as a lawyer anywhere be waived (Paragraph 26(1)(8) of the 2018 Statute for Part A)? |
| --- | --- |

2.

[Are] the provision of Paragraph 50(2)(2)(c)(aa) of the Rechtsanwaltsordnung (Code of Lawyers) (2) and the provision of Paragraph 26(1)(8) of the Satzung Teil A 2018 (2018 Statute for Part A) based thereon permissible under EU law or do they infringe EU law and the rights guaranteed under EU law by requiring, as a condition for the award of a retirement pension, that the right to practise law in Austria and abroad be waived (Paragraph 50(2)(2)(c)(aa)) or that the right to practise as a lawyer anywhere be waived (Paragraph 26(1)(8) of the 2018 Statute for Part A)?

---

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

(2)  RGBl. Nr. 96/1868 idF BGBl I Nr. 10/2017.

---