# C_2008223EN.01001202.xml

| 30.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/12

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 July 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Bonn — Germany) — Andrea Raccanelli v Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV

(Case C-94/07) (1)

1

(Article 39 EC - Concept of ‘worker’ - Non-governmental organisation operating in the public interest - Doctoral grant - Employment contract - Conditions)

(2008/C 223/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Arbeitsgericht Bonn

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Andrea Raccanelli

Applicant:

Defendant: Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV

Defendant:

Re:

Preliminary ruling — Arbeitsgericht Bonn — Interpretation of Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ English Special Edition 1968(II), p. 475) — Capacity as a worker of a doctoral student engaged as a grant recipient by a non-profit-making association established under private law in another Member State which offers most national doctoral students the possibility of concluding a contract of employment — Need to make it possible for doctoral students who are nationals of the other Member States to choose between a grant and a contract of employment — Concept of ‘worker’

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | A researcher in a similar situation to that of the applicant in the main proceedings, that is, a researcher preparing a doctoral thesis on the basis of a grant contract concluded with the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV, must be regarded as a worker within the meaning of Article 39 EC only if his activities are performed for a certain period of time under the direction of an institute forming part of that association and if, in return for those activities, he receives remuneration. It is for the referring court to undertake the necessary verification of the facts in order to establish whether such is the case in the dispute before it. |
| --- | --- |

1.

A researcher in a similar situation to that of the applicant in the main proceedings, that is, a researcher preparing a doctoral thesis on the basis of a grant contract concluded with the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV, must be regarded as a worker within the meaning of Article 39 EC only if his activities are performed for a certain period of time under the direction of an institute forming part of that association and if, in return for those activities, he receives remuneration. It is for the referring court to undertake the necessary verification of the facts in order to establish whether such is the case in the dispute before it.

| 2. | A private-law association, such as the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV, must observe the principle of non-discrimination in relation to workers within the meaning of Article 39 EC. It is for the referring court to establish whether, in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, there has been inequality in the treatment of domestic and foreign doctoral students. |
| --- | --- |

2.

A private-law association, such as the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften eV, must observe the principle of non-discrimination in relation to workers within the meaning of Article 39 EC. It is for the referring court to establish whether, in circumstances such as those of the case in the main proceedings, there has been inequality in the treatment of domestic and foreign doctoral students.

| 3. | In the event that the applicant in the main proceedings is justified in relying on damage caused by the discrimination to which he has been subject, it is for the referring court to assess, in the light of the national legislation applicable in relation to non-contractual liability, the nature of the compensation which he would be entitled to claim. |
| --- | --- |

3.

In the event that the applicant in the main proceedings is justified in relying on damage caused by the discrimination to which he has been subject, it is for the referring court to assess, in the light of the national legislation applicable in relation to non-contractual liability, the nature of the compensation which he would be entitled to claim.

---

(1)  OJ C 117, 26.5.2007.

1

---