Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 7 February 2002 in Case C-28/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Liselotte Kauer v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Angestellten, (Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Articles 94(1), (2) and (3) — Old-age insurance — Periods of child-rearing completed in another Member State before the entry into force of Regulation No 1408/71)
Date: 2002-04-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, family benefit, interpretation of the law, maternity benefit, social-security benefit, worker (EU)

C 84/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.4.2002

(BGBl. 1996 I, p. 1246), employers of 10 or fewer workers
from the duty to keep documents containing the results of a
risk assessment, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to
fulfil its obligations under Articles 5 and 189 of the EC Treaty
(now Articles 10 EC and 249 EC) and Articles 9(1)(a) and
10(3)(a) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on
the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in
the safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183
p. 1). the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: S. von Bahr
(Rapporteur), President of the Fourth Chamber, acting for the
President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,
M. Wathelet and C.W.A. Timmermans,
Judges, Advocate
General: L.A. Geelhoed, Registrar: R. Grass, has given a
judgment on 7 February 2002, in which it:

1. Declares that, by failing to ensure that the obligation to be in
possession of an assessment in documentary form of the risks to
safety and health at work, as laid down by Council Directive
89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures
to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers
at work, applies to employers of 10 or fewer workers in all
circumstances, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to
fulfil its obligations under Articles 9(1)(a) and 10(3)(a) of that
directive;

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 29 November 2001

in Case C-17/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Collège juridictionnel de la Région de Bruxelles-
Capitale): François De Coster v Collège des bourgmestre
et échevins de Watermael-Boitsfort (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Defination of a
national court or tribunal — Freedom to provide services —
Municipal tax on satellite dishes — Restriction on the
freedom to receive television programmes by satellite)

(2002/C 84/28)

(Language of the case: French)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

the Brussels-Capital

Capitale (Judicial Board of
region)
(Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between François De Coster and Collège des
bourgmestre et échevins de Watermael-Boitsfort — on the
interpretation of Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after
amendment, Article 49 EC) and Articles 60 and 66 of the EC
Treaty (now Articles 50 and 55 EC) — the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
S. von Bahr, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur)
and M. Wathelet, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 Nov-
ember 2001, in which it has ruled:

Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC)
and Articles 60 and 66 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 50 and 55
EC) must be interpreted as preventing the application of a tax on
satellite dishes such as that introduced by Articles 1 to 3 of the tax
regulation adopted on 24 June 1997 by the municipal council of
Watermael-Boitsfort.

(1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

7 February 2002

in Case C-28/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberster Gerichtshof): Liselotte Kauer v Pensions-
versicherungsanstalt der Angestellten, (1)

(Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC)
No 1408/71 — Articles 94(1), (2) and (3) — Old-age
insurance — Periods of child-rearing completed in another
Member State before the entry into force of Regulation
No 1408/71)

(2002/C 84/29)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-17/00: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Collège juridictionnel de la Région de Bruxelles-

In Case C-28/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Liselotte

6.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 84/19

Kauer and Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Angestellten, on
the interpretation of Article 94(1), (2) and (3) of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
application of social security schemes to employed persons, to
self-employed persons and to members of
their families
moving within the Community, as amended and updated by
Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ
1997 L 28, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
S. von Bahr, President of the Fourth Chamber, acting for the
President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,
L. Sevo´ n and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate
General: F.G. Jacobs, Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-
trator, has given a judgment on 7 February 2002, in which it
has ruled:

Article 94(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June
1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families
moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated
by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, read
in conjunction, depending on the case, with Articles 8a, 48 and 52
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and
43 EC), is to be interpreted as precluding application of a Member
State’s legislation under which child-raising periods completed in
another State party to the Agreement on the European Economic
Area of 2 May 1992 or in another Member State of the European
Union are not treated as substitute periods for the purposes of old-
age insurance unless

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

22 January 2002

in Case C-31/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour de Cassation): Conseil National de l’Ordre des
Architectes v Nicolas Dreessen (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 10 EC and
43 EC — National
legislation restricting access to the
profession of architect to the possession of a diploma or
professional qualification — Community national holding a
diploma not listed in Directive 85/384/EEC — Obligation
on the host Member State when presented with an application
to practise the profession of architect on its territory to make
a comparison between the specialised knowledge and abilities
certified by the diploma and the experience acquired, and the
qualifications required by its national legislation)

(2002/C 84/30)

(Language of the case: French)

— they were completed after the entry into force of that regulation

in the first State, and

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

— the applicant receives, or received, for the children concerned,
cash maternity allowances or equivalent allowances under the
legislation of that same State,

when such periods completed in national territory are treated as
substitute periods for the purposes of old-age insurance without any
limitation in time or any other condition.

(1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.

In Case C-31/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Cour de Cassation (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Conseil
National de l’Ordre des Architectes and Nicolas Dreessen on
the interpretation of Articles 10 EC and 43 EC, the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
S. von Bahr, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola and
C.W.A. Timmermans,
Judges, Advocate General: P. Léger,
Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has given a
judgment on 22 January 2002, in which it has ruled:

Article 43 EC is to be interpreted as meaning that where a
Community national applies to the competent authorities of a
Member State for authorisation to practise a profession, access to
which depends, under national legislation, on the possession of a
diploma or professional qualification or on periods of practical
experience, those authorities are required to take into consideration
all of
formal
the diplomas, certificates and other evidence of
qualifications of the person concerned, and his relevant experience, by
comparing the specialised knowledge and abilities so certified, and
that experience, with the knowledge and qualifications required by