Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2003:274
Date: 2003-05-13
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Association Agreement;External relations;Free movement of workers
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Germany

summary, at Article 3(1) that international carriage is to be carried out subject to Community authorisation in conjunction with a driver attestation if the driver is a national of a non-member country. 131. Article 3(3) of Regulation No 881/92, inserted by Regulation No 484/2002, states that: 3. A driver attestation shall be issued by a Member State ... to any haulier who: - is the holder of a Community authorisation, - in that Member State lawfully employs drivers who are nationals of non-member countries or lawfully uses drivers who are nationals of non-member countries put at his disposal in accordance with the conditions of employment and of vocational training laid down in that same Member State: (24) - by laws, regulations or administrative provisions, and, as appropriate, - by collective agreements, in accordance with the rules applicable in that Member State. 132. This regulation not only creates an attestation (which will only become compulsory from 19 March 2003), but also lays down the principle that drivers who are nationals of third countries put at the disposal of a haulier in a Member State must be used lawfully, that is to say by observing the conditions of employment laid down by the same Member State for drivers of its own nationality or residing in its territory. I shall return to this point below. 133. I should emphasise that this regulation was adopted on the basis of Article 71 EC. It follows that legislation such as that at issue in the present case also comes within the transport sector. 134. I therefore suggest that the Court makes as its primary finding that Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol does not apply to national legislation covering the transport sector, of the kind in issue in the main proceedings. 135. It is only in the alternative that I shall consider the other arguments raised in debate and which are based on the opposite hypothesis. (b) Concerning the existence of a new restriction on the freedom to provide services 136. It should first of all be noted what the principle of the freedom to provide services represents. According to Article 60 of the EC Treaty (now Article 50 EC), the person providing a service may, in order to do so, temporarily pursue his activity in the State where the service is provided, under the same conditions as are imposed by that State on its own nationals. 137. Considered in conjunction with the standstill clause, this principle means, in the first place, that the Turkish Republic may not impose new restrictions on temporary activities that German undertakings wish to carry out in Turkey. However, this issue does not arise in the present cases. 138. For its part, the Federal Republic of Germany cannot create new impediments to activities that Turkish road haulage undertakings wish to carry out in Germany. 139. It is not however clear whether, in the main proceedings, the international haulage services are provided in the name and under the responsibility of Turkish undertakings that are subsidiaries of German companies or under the responsibility of the German companies themselves. I therefore need to consider both possibilities. (i) Carriage is provided in the name and under the responsibility of a Turkish undertaking 140. Two possibilities may be distinguished. - The Turkish undertaking provides carriage using its own lorries and its own drivers 141. This is a typical example of the provision of cross-border haulage services. 142. The Federal Republic of Germany does not impose any obstacles to this as it grants an exemption from the requirement to have a work permit to travelling personnel working in ... international carriage ... for employers with registered offices abroad, where the vehicle is registered in the State of the employer's registered office. (25) 143. It should however be noted that a Turkish undertaking providing carriage using its own lorries may be faced with a limit on the number of journeys it may make each year. The bilateral treaties usually provide that limits are to be calculated on an annual basis. Limits such as these also applied between Member States until the entry into force of Regulation No 881/92. 144. Since then, however, owners of lorries registered in a Member State may obtain licences authorising them to undertake an unlimited number of journeys each year. That may explain the attraction of these lorries for Turkish undertakings. - The Turkish undertaking provides carriage using its own drivers but with lorries which belong to a German undertaking and which are registered in Germany 145. This corresponds to one of the two possible situations which, according to the Commission, may arise in the present case, namely that of a hiring of the lorries by the German undertaking to the Turkish undertaking. 146. In that case, according to the German legislation in question, drivers who are nationals of third countries are no longer entitled to an exemption from the requirement to have a work permit in Germany, because the lorry is not registered in the State in which the employer has its registered office. 147. At the hearing, the German Government emphasised that from a time well before the entry into force of the Additional Protocol undertakings established in third countries had not been granted authorisation to provide haulage services on German territory if their lorries were not registered in the country in which they were established. The Federal Republic of Germany had therefore not introduced any new restriction as regards rights relating to Turkish undertakings, but was instead better able subsequently to enforce, through the medium of work permits, an old rule that had often been disregarded in the past. 148. If the Court does not share my primary conclusion, it would be a matter for the national courts to reach a finding in fact in relation to this question, which is clearly a decisive one. 149. In the same context, it should be pointed out that if a German undertaking were to put its lorry at the disposal of a Turkish undertaking together with the corresponding licence, it would be in breach of Community law. 150. In its recent judgment in Bourrasse and Perchicot, (26) the Court confirmed that, even inside the Community, the free movement of a lorry hired by an undertaking in a Member State to an undertaking established in another Member State is permitted only under certain conditions. The same must apply a fortiori where the hiring is made to a transport undertaking established in a non-member country. 151. In that judgment, the Court stated as follows: 34 As regards carriage authorisations, according to the combined provisions of Articles 1(1) and 3(1) of Regulation No 881/92, a Community authorisation is required to carry out the international carriage of goods by road for hire or reward within the territory of the Community and, pursuant to Article 5(1) and (2) of the same regulation, that authorisation is to be issued by the authorities of the Member State in which the transport undertaking is established, which will issue the holder with the original and the number of certified true copies of the authorisation corresponding to the number of vehicles at the disposal of the holder, including those held under hire contracts. Consequently, it is for the lessee not the lessor to obtain a Community authorisation for the hired vehicles from the authorities of the Member State in which he is established. 35 Furthermore, under Article 5(4) of Regulation No 881/92, the Community authorisation is to be made out in the haulier's name and he may not transfer it to any third party. It follows that where vehicles originally used by a road haulier holding a Community authorisation are then hired out to another road haulier, the lessor is not entitled to transfer the benefit of his own Community authorisation to the lessee. 152. In its further reasoning in that judgment, the Court went on to state that under Article 2(1) of Council Directive 84/647/EEC of 19 December 1984 on the use of vehicles hired without drivers for the carriage of goods by road, (27) as amended by Council Directive 90/398/EEC of 24 July 1990, (28) each Member State is to allow the use within its territory of vehicles hired by undertakings established on the territory of another Member State provided that, inter alia, the vehicles are registered or put into circulation in compliance with the laws in the Member State in which the haulier lessee is established (paragraph 40 of the judgment). 153. The French Government has pointed out also that the agreements entered into between the Community and third countries such as the Republic of Hungary (29) also provide that a transport company established in Hungary which provides transport services between Hungary and the Community must use motor vehicles that are registered in Hungary. 154. It therefore appears that if the legal relationship in the main proceedings involved the hiring of lorries by a German undertaking to a Turkish undertaking - which is a matter for the national courts to determine - the use of these lorries by the Turkish undertaking on German territory would amount to an illegal practice. 155. The principle of the freedom to provide services may not be relied upon in support of illegal activities and the fact that Turkish workers driving those lorries would be required to obtain a German work permit could not amount to a restriction on the freedom to provide services. Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol would quite simply not apply. (ii) Carriage is provided in the name and under the responsibility of a German undertaking 156. In that case, the status of the drivers may be covered by two possible situations. - The Turkish drivers are taken on by the German undertaking directly 157. It appears from the second question raised in Case C-317/01 and the third question raised in Case C-369/01 that the national courts are of the view that the Turkish workers do not belong to the legitimate labour force in Germany. 158. In its statement of grounds, the Seventh Chamber of the Bundessozialgericht states however that the necessary findings of fact which would enable a conclusion to be reached as to who the drivers' employer is have so far been lacking. It goes on to ask whether it is relevant whether the workers concerned are employees of a Turkish employer only or whether another (German) employer may be involved, in whatever form, in the employment relationship. 159. I should point out in that regard that according to the Court's settled case-law the essential feature of an employment relationship is that for a certain period of time a person performs services for and under the direction of another person in return for which he receives remuneration. (30) 160. In the present case, it may be assumed that the true position is that the drivers are principally given their instructions by German undertakings, but it has not been suggested that they are also paid by them. 161. It is therefore unlikely that they may be considered to be employees of German undertakings. However, as there is a doubt, it is necessary to consider the situation that would arise if the Turkish drivers were in fact employees of the German undertaking. 162. The question therefore is whether the fact that the German authorities require the Turkish drivers to have a work permit amounts to a restriction on the freedom to provide services to the prejudice of the German haulage undertaking if the latter is the employer of the drivers. 163. I am of the view that this question falls to be answered in the negative. 164. It should be noted in this regard that, to the extent that the requirement to have a work permit, imposed by the German authorities, affects German haulage undertakings, that can, seen from the perspective of the freedom to provide services, amount at its highest to an obstacle to the exporting of services by those undertakings. 165. An obstacle to the freedom to export services was in issue in the Corsica Ferries France case, cited above. Before addressing the question dealt with above of the application of the provisions relating to the freedom to provide services to the transport sector, the Court held that ... the French legislation at issue in the main proceedings may constitute a restriction on freedom to provide services within the Community within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 59 of the EEC Treaty in so far as it discriminates between persons providing transport services between a port situated in national territory and a port situated in another Member State of the Community and persons providing transport services between two ports situated in national territory. (31) 166. In the present case, the German legislation is not discriminatory. The requirement to have a work permit affects haulage operations in the same way, whether the German undertaking is providing transport within Germany, to another Member State or to Turkey. 167. A measure of this kind, adopted by a Member State, which affects without distinction the provision by its own nationals of services within the Member State, on the one hand, and the export by the same nationals of the same services to another Member State or, as in the present case, to Turkey, on the other hand, does not constitute an obstacle to the freedom to provide services. 168. I am of the view that it is appropriate to apply by analogy the case-law of the Court relating to the free movement of goods. 169. As regards Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC), which relates to restrictions on imports, the Court held at paragraph 5 of the Dassonville (32) judgment that [a]ll trading rules enacted by Member States which are capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade are to be considered as measures having an effect equivalent to quantitative restrictions. The same broad definition of the concept of restrictions applies to the freedom to provide services, including imports of services, as is shown inter alia by paragraph 29 of the De Coster (33) judgment, which states that Article 59 of the Treaty requires not only the elimination of all discrimination on grounds of nationality against providers of services who are established in another Member State, but also the abolition of any restriction, even if it applies without distinction to national providers of services and to those of other Member States, which is liable to prohibit or further impede the activities of a provider of services established in another Member State where he lawfully provides similar services (see Case C-76/90 Säger [1991] ECR I-4221, paragraph 12; Case C-43/93 Vander Elst [1994] ECR I-3803, paragraph 14). 170. On the other hand, as regards Article 34 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 29 EC), which deals with restrictions on exports, the Court held in the Groenveld (34) judgment that [t]hat provision concerns national measures which have as their specific object or effect the restriction of patterns of exports and thereby the establishment of a difference in treatment between the domestic trade of a Member State and its export trade in such a way as to provide a particular advantage for national production or for the domestic market of the State in question at the expense of the production or of the trade of other Member States .... (35) 171. Similarly, it is wrong in my opinion to treat national legislation as imposing an obstacle to the freedom to provide services unless it affects the import of services in a different way from that in which it affects the provision of services within the Member State. 172. Any other interpretation would have the result that the smallest obligation imposed by a Member State on its own nationals who are involved in the provision of services would amount to an obstacle to the freedom to provide services, as every one of those nationals would be a potential exporter of services. Such an argument would leave no place for situations confined to the territory of a single Member State, whereas it is settled case-law that ... the provisions of the Treaty on freedom to provide services cannot apply to activities whose relevant elements are confined within a single Member State .... (36) 173. It follows from all the above that the fact that the German authorities require that Turkish drivers obtain a work permit cannot amount to an obstacle to the provision of cross-border services by German carriers who employ the drivers in question. Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol does not apply in the circumstances considered above. - The Turkish drivers are taken on and paid by a Turkish undertaking 174. Since we are proceeding on the assumption of haulage operations for which the German undertaking is responsible, now dealing with another form of the provision of services, which may be termed the making available of drivers. This is the second possible situation which the Commission suggests may arise in the main proceedings in this case. 175. The Turkish undertaking would act, so to speak, as an employment agency. I say so to speak intentionally, as it became clear at the hearing that there are, in fact, neither contracts for the provision of drivers nor contracts for the hiring of lorries. According to the claimants in the main proceedings, the actual circumstances may simply be analysed from either point of view. 176. The question is therefore whether the exemption from the requirement to obtain a work permit, coupled with a systematic refusal to grant one, creates a new restriction on the freedom to provide services, which consist in the provision of drivers of Turkish nationality by a Turkish undertaking to a German haulage company. 177. In this regard, the German Government stated at the hearing that until 1972 there was in Germany a prohibition on making workers available (Leiharbeit) to an undertaking. This prohibition was subsequently removed, subject to certain conditions as far as German workers and workers from other Member States were concerned. It was retained for workers from third countries, including Turkish workers. 178. According to the German Government, it follows that as the making available of Turkish workers by a Turkish undertaking to a German undertaking was prohibited before the entry into force of the Additional Protocol, no new restriction was introduced by the abolition of the exemption of the requirement to obtain a work permit and a systematic refusal to grant one. Even when a work permit was not required, the making available of Turkish workers was not lawful. 179. If that were indeed the case, and it will be a matter for the national court to verify the point, if relevant, the question whether the requirement to obtain a work permit constitutes a restriction does not arise. I do not see in what way the requirement to have a work permit could constitute a restriction if the activity has always been prohibited and remains prohibited. 180. In the alternative, and supposing that the making available of drivers were, nevertheless, allowable in principle, the question still arises as to whether, in fact, the circumstances involve the provision of services within the meaning of Article 50 EC. 181. It is necessary to ask whether the making available of drivers was really carried out temporarily (following the expression used in Article 50 EC). It will be for the national courts to carry out the necessary factual analysis. 182. They could refer in this regard to the Gebhard (37) judgment, where the Court stated that the temporary nature of the activities in question has to be determined in the light, not only of the duration of the provision of the service, but also of its regularity, periodicity or continuity. 183. The Court's case-law also allows Member States to prevent the pseudo-provision of services. Thus, ... a Member State cannot be denied the right to take measures to prevent the exercise by a person providing services whose activity is entirely or principally directed towards its territory of the freedom guaranteed by Article 59 for the purpose of avoiding the professional rules of conduct which would be applicable to him were he established in that State .... (38) 184. Reference should also be made to the judgment in the Rush Portuguesa (39) case. This states: It should be stated that, since the concept of the provision of services as defined by Article 60 of the Treaty covers very different activities, the same conclusions are not necessarily appropriate in all cases. In particular, it must be acknowledged, as the French Government has argued, that an undertaking engaged in the making available of labour, although a supplier of services within the meaning of the Treaty, carries on activities which are specifically intended to enable workers to gain access to the labour market of the host State. In such a case, Article 216 of the Act of Accession would preclude the making available of workers from Portugal by an undertaking providing services. 185. In the present case, the Turkish undertaking admittedly does not seek to gain access for the workers to the German labour market in the sense of integrating them into that market, but the situation is quite close to this, as German lorries are being driven under instructions given by a German undertaking. As the Netherlands Government pointed out, Article 41(1) needs to be interpreted so as not to render illusory the powers retained by Member States to regulate access by Turkish nationals both to their territory and to their labour market. 186. Lastly, in this context, the Court's case-law should not be overlooked, according to which ... Community law does not preclude Member States from extending their legislation, or collective labour agreements entered into by both sides of industry, to any person who is employed, even temporarily, within their territory, no matter in which country the employer is established; nor does Community law prohibit Member States from enforcing those rules by appropriate means (Joined Cases 62/81 and 63/81 Seco and Desquenne [1982] ECR 223). (40) 187. Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (41) provides for its part that where workers are posted from one Member State to another, and whatever the law applicable to the employment relationship, there shall be applied to those workers the terms and conditions of employment, including the national minimum rates of pay, which, in the Member States where the work is carried out, are laid down: - by law, regulation or administrative action, and/or - by collective agreements. Article 1(4) of that directive states, moreover, that [u]ndertakings established in a non-member State must not be given more favourable treatment than undertakings established in a Member State. 188. Although those rules did not become binding until 16 December 1999, there was nothing to prevent a Member State from applying them voluntarily before that date. As is stated in the Rush Portuguesa judgment, the terms of which are repeated word for word in the 12th recital of that directive, Community law does not preclude Member States from applying their legislation. 189. Reference should finally be made once again to Regulation No 484/2002, which expressly applies the same principles to road transport operations. 190. It follows that, to the extent that the requirement to obtain a work permit represents a method of verification of compliance with national legislation in the field of employment law and social law, compliance which Member States are entitled to demand under the case-law and legislation referred to above, this requirement is in my view equally justified by an overriding reason relating to the public interest. 191. I should point out again, however, that the foregoing line of reasoning has been provided in the alternative. I propose therefore to reply to part (b) of the third question raised in Case C-317/01 and to the first question raised in Case C-369/01 to the effect that Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to national legislation in the field of road transport operations of the kind in issue in the main proceedings. D - Part (a) of the third question referred for a preliminary ruling in Case C-317/01 and part (a) of the first question referred for a preliminary ruling in Case C-369/01 192. These questions are identical and fall to be answered in the same way. The wording is as follows: Is Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol ... to be interpreted as meaning that (a) a Turkish worker is entitled to plead a restriction on the freedom to provide services which is contrary to the Additional Protocol ...? 193. The Turkish drivers take the view that they may rely on Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol, on the basis that the measure restricts the freedom of Turkish transport undertakings to provide services in the territory of a Member State and to that extent also affects the legal situation of the employees of those undertakings. 194. For the German Government and for the Commission, Article 41(1) of the Protocol cannot be relied on by the workers. In the Commission's opinion, only an employer established in Turkey may raise a breach of this provision of the EEC-Turkey Agreement before a national court. Such a right is not available to Turkish workers whose employer is established in Turkey nor to an undertaking established in the Member State concerned and which is connected to the Turkish employer through a contract for services. 195. The Netherlands Government considers for its part that it follows by analogy with the judgment in the Clean Car Autoservice case (42) that a measure having direct effect, such as Article 41 of the Protocol, may be relied on not only by the direct beneficiaries of rights under it (in the present case, as far as the freedom to provide services is concerned, the employers), but also by others, and in particular by workers employed by those employers. 196. The French Government doubts that the Court's reasoning in the Clean Car Autoservice case (43) may be applied in these cases, and that a worker who is employed in Turkey is entitled to rely on the standstill clause relating to the freedom to provide services appearing in the Additional Protocol to the Agreement. Firstly, Community law does not regulate the terms and conditions on which Turkish workers are taken on by employers in that country. Secondly, the taking-on of the workers in question by Turkish employers is not necessarily connected to the right the latter have to provide services to the Community. As it is of the view that Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol only applies to freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, and not to access to employment, the French Government considers that the provision applies primarily to undertakings and not to their employees. 197. I mentioned above that in my opinion Article 41(1) did not apply to circumstances such as those arising in the main proceedings. 198. It is therefore only in the alternative that I shall consider this question. 199. It follows from the Court's judgment in the Savas case (44) that Article 41(1) has direct effect in Member States. Were it to apply in circumstances such as those arising in the main proceedings, it could therefore be relied upon by Turkish undertakings which make drivers available to German undertakings. 200. I am of the view that it may also be relied upon by those drivers. 201. In the Clean Car Autoservice judgment, the Court held that an employer who wishes to take on as a manager a person previously residing in another Member State could rely on the principle of equal treatment in the field of the freedom of movement for workers, laid down under Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) equally as much as the manager himself. 202. The Court stated in this regard that: 20 ... in order to be truly effective, the right of workers to be engaged and employed without discrimination necessarily entails as a corollary the employer's entitlement to engage them in accordance with the rules governing freedom of movement for workers. 21 Those rules could easily be rendered nugatory if Member States could circumvent the prohibitions which they contain merely by imposing on employers requirements to be met by any worker whom they wish to employ which, if imposed directly on the worker, would constitute restrictions on the exercise of the right to freedom of movement to which that worker is entitled under Article 48 of the Treaty. 203. I consider that an analogous reasoning, which might be termed mirror reasoning, may apply where a person providing services is unable to undertake a cross-border activity by reason of obstacles imposed in relation to the workers he may employ. 204. To paraphrase the Clean Car Autoservice judgment, one might say that in order to be truly effective, the right of undertakings to provide services without discrimination necessarily entails as a corollary the workers' entitlement to carry out the duties entrusted to them in the field of service provision. The rules relating to the freedom to provide services could easily be rendered nugatory if Member States could circumvent the prohibitions which they contain merely by imposing on workers requirements to be met in order to carry out their duties as employees which, if imposed directly on the undertakings which employed them, would constitute restrictions on the exercise of the right to the freedom to provide services to which they are entitled. 205. In the circumstances, however, no intra-Community dimension is involved. The freedom to provide services is not exercised between the Community and the Republic of Turkey. It follows that Turkish workers may not rely on their employer's entitlement not to have imposed on them a new restriction on the provision of cross-border services they might wish to offer. 206. I therefore propose that the Court should answer the question raised by finding that to the extent that Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol applies in circumstances such as those arising in the main proceedings, it must be interpreted as meaning that a Turkish worker is entitled to plead a new restriction on the freedom to provide services which his employer wishes to make available. E - The second question referred for a preliminary ruling in Case C-369/01 207. This question reads as follows: Does such a restriction concern exclusively the freedom to provide services or does it also or solely concern conditions of access to employment within the meaning of Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 ...? 208. It follows from the reasoning set out above that neither Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol nor Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 may be relied on in the present case. It is therefore unnecessary to answer this question. 209. I would add by way of obiter dictum that there is a solution that would avoid the Turkish drivers becoming unemployed and German undertakings having to take on drivers who are familiar neither with the Turkish language nor with local customs. It would consist in giving those drivers a work permit limited to the situation where they were employed by German undertakings under German employment and social security law. IV - Conclusion 210. For the foregoing reasons, I propose that the Court should reply as follows to the questions referred by the Seventh and the Eleventh Chambers of the Bundessozialgericht: (1) Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council established by the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement of 1963, signed on 23 November 1970, must be interpreted as meaning that where, at any time after 1 December 1980, a Member State of the Community introduces new restrictions on access to the employment market for Turkish workers, those restrictions will not apply to Turkish workers who, at the time when the restrictions come into force, are already on the territory of and legally resident and employed in that Member State. (2) Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council does not apply to Turkish workers employed by an employer with its seat in Turkey and who, as long-distance lorry drivers engaged in international haulage, regularly pass through a Member State of the Community without belonging to the legitimate labour force of that Member State. (3) Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol to the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to national legislation in the field of road transport operations of the kind in issue in the main proceedings. (4) To the extent that Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol applies in circumstances such as those arising in the main proceedings, it must be interpreted as meaning that a Turkish worker is entitled to plead a new restriction on the freedom to provide services which his employer wishes to make available. 1: - Original language: French. 2: - The Additional Protocol was concluded, approved and confirmed by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972 (OJ 1972 L 293, p. 1). 3: - The decision came into force on 1 July 1980. It was not published in the Official Journal, but may be consulted in a publication by the Office for the Official Publications of the European Communities: Association Agreement and Protocols between the European Economic Community and Turkey and other basic texts, Brussels, 1992. 4: - OJ 1973 C 113, p. 1. 5: - Case C-1/97 Birden [1998] ECR I-7747. 6: - See Case C-192/89 Sevince [1990] ECR I-3461. 7: - Case C-171/95 [1997] ECR I-329. 8: - Case C-37/98 [2000] ECR I-2927. 9: - Author's emphasis. 10: - Subject always to the safeguards laid down by Article 12 of Decision No 1/80, which reads as follows: Where a Member State of the Community or Turkey experiences or is threatened with disturbances on its employment market which might seriously jeopardise the standard of living or level of employment in a particular region, branch of activity or occupation, the State concerned may refrain from automatically applying Articles 6 and 7. The State concerned shall inform the Association Council of any such temporary restriction. 11: - Case C-188/00 [2002] ECR I-10691 paragraph 68. 12: - Kurz judgment, cited above in footnote 10, paragraph 68. 13: - Author's emphasis. 14: - See the judgment in the Birden case, cited above. 15: - Cited above at point 68. In fact, the application of the rules set out in the Bozkurt judgment leads to the conclusion that these drivers belonged to the legitimate labour force in Turkey. 16: - Paragraph 3 of the judgment mentions that in the intervals between his journeys and during his periods of leave, that driver lived in the Netherlands. 17: - Case 9/88 [1989] ECR 2989, paragraph 17. 18: - See Case C-49/89 Corsica Ferries France [1989] ECR 4441. 19: - Cited above in footnote 18. 20: - Author's emphasis. 21: - In the Netherlands as well, international lorry drivers were not covered by the general policy on aliens. See the Bozkurt judgment, cited above, paragraphs 4 and 5. 22: - OJ 2002 L 76, p. 1. 23: - OJ 1992 L 95, p. 1. 24: - Author's emphasis. 25: - Paragraph 9(2) of the AEVO, as amended, cited above at point 16. 26: - Joined Cases C-228/01 and C-289/01 [2002] ECR I-10213. 27: - OJ 1984 L 335, p. 72. 28: - OJ 1990 L 202, p. 46. 29: - That was also the interpretation of that regulation adopted by Advocate General Van Gerven in his Opinion in Corsica Ferries Italia (Case C-18/93 [1994] ECR I-1783, point 25). 30: - See, in particular, Case 66/85 Lawrie-Blum [1986] ECR 2121, paragraphs 16 and 17; Case C-85/96 Martínez Sala [1998] ECR I-2691, paragraph 32; Case C-337/97 Meeusen [1999] ECR I-3289; and Kurz, cited above. 31: - Paragraph 7 of the judgment, cited in footnote 18; author's emphasis. 32: - Case 8/74 [1974] ECR 837. 33: - Case C-17/00 [2001] ECR I-9445. 34: - Case 15/79 [1979] ECR 3409, paragraph 7. 35: - Author's emphasis. See also inter alia Case 237/82 Jongeneel Kaas and Others [1984] ECR 483, paragraph 22; Case C-47/90 Delhaize and Le Lion [1992] ECR I-3669, paragraph 12; and Case C-3/91 Exportur [1992] ECR I-5529, paragraph 21. 36: - Case 52/79 Debauve and Others [1980] ECR 833, paragraph 9. See also Case C-41/90 Höfner and Elser [1991] ECR I-1979, paragraph 37, and Case C-70/95 Sodemare and Others [1997] ECR I-3395, paragraph 38. 37: - Case C-55/94 [1995] ECR I-4165, paragraph 27. 38: - Case 33/74 Van Binsbergen [1974] ECR 1299, paragraph 13. See also Case 130/88 Van de Bijl [1989] ECR 3039, paragraph 26; Case C-211/91 Commission v Belgium [1992] ECR I-6757, paragraph 12; Case C-148/91 Veronica Omroep Organisatie [1993] ECR I-487, paragraph 12; and Case C-23/93 TV 10 [1994] ECR I-4795, paragraph 20. 39: - Case C-113/89 [1990] ECR I-1417, paragraph 16. 40: - Judgment in the Rush Portuguesa case, cited above in footnote 39. 41: - OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1. 42: - Case C-350/96 [1998] ECR I-2521. 43: - Cited above in footnote 42. 44: - Cited above in footnote 8.