Case C-31/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Socialgericht Aachen by order of 18 January 2002 in the case of Maria Barth against Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz, additional parties (1) PAX Familienfürsorge Krankenversicherung and (2) Landesamt für Besoldung und Versorgung Nordrhein-Westfalen
Date: 2002-05-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, pension scheme, social legislation, social-security benefit, social-security contribution, worker (EU)

C 109/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

4.5.2002

where on the basis of the documents sent to him a sensible
consumer could have thought that all he had to do to claim
the amount held for him was to return an enclosed payment
notice, so that the payment of the prize did not depend on an
order for and delivery of goods from the undertaking promis-
ing the prize, but where a catalogue and a voucher for a trial
offer without obligation are sent to the consumer with the
prize notification?

3. Are carers within the meaning of Paragraph 19 of
Volume XI of the SGB workers within the meaning of
Article 39 EC? If so, does that preclude denying them the
right to have ‘pension insurance contributions’ paid on
their behalf on the basis that they do not have their
residence or habitual place of stay in the relevant country?

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, there is no
need to answer the other two questions.

(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Socialgericht
Aachen by order of 18 January 2002 in the case of Maria
Barth against Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz,
additional parties (1) PAX Familienfürsorge Krankenver-
sicherung and (2) Landesamt für Besoldung und Versor-
gung Nordrhein-Westfalen

(Case C-31/02)

(2002/C 109/38)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Socialgericht Aachen
(Social Court, Aachen) of 18 January 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 4 February 2002, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Maria Barth against Landesversicherungsanstalt
Rheinprovinz, additonal parties (1) PAX Familienfürsorge
Krankenversicherung and (2) Landesamt für Besoldung und
Versorgung Nordrhein-Westfalen on the following questions:

1. Are the provisions of Regulation EEC No 1408/71 (1) of
the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
security schemes to employed persons and their families
moving within the Community also applicable to the
German care insurance regime if cover for the risk
of becoming reliant on care under Paragraph 23,
in
conjunction with Paragraph 110, of Volume XI of the
Sozialgesetzbuch (German Code of Social Law, herein-
after ‘the SGB’), which relates to Social Care Insurance, is
based in whole or in part on a private care insurance
policy?

2. Do the contributions payable to the statutory pension
insurance scheme by care insurance institutions on behalf
of carers not acting in the course of employment pursuant
to Paragraph 44 of Volume XI of the SGB, in conjunction
with Paragraphs 3(1)(1)(a) and 166(2) of Volume VI of
the SGB, which relates to Statutory Pension Insurance,
constitute ‘sickness benefits’ within the meaning of
Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No EEC No 1408/71? If so,
may such benefits be payable on behalf of carers who
provide care in the country of the competent institution
but live in a different Member State?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal-
tungsgericht by order of that Court of 8 November 2001
in the case of Landeszahnärztekammer Hessen against
Dr Markus Vogel

(Case C-35/02)

(2002/C 109/39)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsger-
icht (Federal Administrative Court) of 8 November 2001,
received at the Court Registry on 12 February 2002, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Landeszahnärztekammer
Hessen against Dr Markus Vogel on the following question:

Is
it compatible with Article 1 of Council Directive
78/687/EEC (1) of 25 July 1978 concerning the coordination
of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative
action in respect of the activities of dental practitioners (OJ
1978 L 233, p. 10) for national legislation to permit doctors
in general to practise dentistry on a permanent basis without
having the dental
training required by the directive and
certified by an appropriate diploma?

Does the answer to this question turn on whether the activity
is pursued under the title ‘dental practitioner’?

(1) OJ L 233 of 24.8.1978, p. 10.