Case C-445/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice Unico del Tribunale di Beilla by order of 18 October 2001 in case of Roberto Simoncello and Piera Boerio v Direzione Provinciale del Lavoro, Vercelli (Principal Labour Administration, Vercelli)
Date: 2002-04-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, labour law

6.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 84/37

the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court),
which was received at the Court Registry on 19 November
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Stadt Villingen-
Schwenningen v Ophilia Akosua Owusu on the following
questions:

Giudice Unico del Tribunale di Beilla (Single-Judge Court of
Beilla), which was received at the Court Registry on 19 Novem-
ber 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Roberto
Simoncello and Piera Boerio v Direzione Provinciale del lavoro
(Vercelli) on the following question:

1. With regard to the legal position on 16 May 1997, was
prostitution engaged in on a self-employed basis by a
national of Member State A in Member State B covered
by freedom of establishment (Article 52 of the EC Treaty)
and/or freedom to provide services (Article 59 of the
EC Treaty)? Is it in this regard relevant whether prosti-
tution was at that time considered in Member State B to
be immoral and anti-social?

2.

If the first question is answered in the negative:

With regard to the legal position on 16 May 1997, did
the national of Member State A derive a right to reside in
Member State B directly from Article 8a of the EC Treaty?

3.

If the second question is answered in the negative:

As the law stood on 16 May 1997, did that person have
a right of residence under the conditions set out in
Article 1 of Council Directive 90/364/EEC (1) of 28 June
1990 on the right of residence, even though Member
State B had not yet at that date implemented that directive
in its domestic law?

4.

If the third question is answered in the affirmative:

Was that person required at the time of her entry to have
sufficient resources and to demonstrate this to the
competent authority, or does it suffice if, during her
period of residence in Member State B, she did not claim
any social assistance?

(1) OJ L 180, p. 26.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice Unico
del Tribunale di Beilla by order of 18 October 2001 in
case of Roberto Simoncello and Piera Boerio v Direzione
Provinciale del Lavoro, Vercelli (Principal Labour Admin-
istration, Vercelli)

(Case C-445/01)

(2002/C 84/63)

Are Article 9 bis (2) of Law No 608 of 28 November 1996, in
so far as it provides that an employer is required to notify the
Sezione Circoscrizionale per l’Impiego of the hiring of every
worker, and Article 10 of Legislative Decree No 469 of
23 December 1997, in so far as it refers to Article 9 bis of Law
608/1996 in cases where non-authorised parties have acted as
intermediaries, consistent with the principles of Community
law laid down by Articles 48, 52 and 90 of the EC Treaty
(now, after amendment, Articles 39, 43, and 86 EC).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht
für Zivilrechtssachen, Vienna, by order of that court of
5 November 2001 in the case of DLD Trading Company
Import-Export, spol.s.r.o. v Republic of Austria

(Case C-447/01)

(2002/C 84/64)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Landesgericht für
Zivilrechtssachen (Regional Court for Civil Matters), Vienna,
of 5 November 2001, which was received at the Court Registry
on 20 November 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
OLD Trading Company Import-Export, spol.s.r.o. v Republic
of Austria on the following questions:

1. Was a provision of directly applicable Community law or
a directive infringed and, if so, which one, as a result of
the government action described in the facts, in particular
the alteration as from 1 January 1998 of the travellers’
duty-free amount to EUR 75 or EUR 100, according to
customs
the
implementing law [ZollR-DG] in conjunction with Para-
graph 19a of the corresponding implementing regulation
[ZollR-DV] and the quantitative restriction in regard to
the relief from turnover tax and excise duty on tobacco
products.

case under Paragraph 97a of

the

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 18 October 2001 of the

Is the infringed provision of directly applicable Com-
munity law or of that directive one which confers an
individual right on the plaintiff in the main proceedings?

2.

If Question 1 is answered affirmatively: