Case C-153/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace di Genova by order of that Court of 18 April 2002 in the action brought by Valentina Neri against the European School of Economics (ESE INSIGHT World Education System Ltd)
Date: 2002-06-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: free movement of persons, national law, preliminary issue, provision of services, recognition of diplomas, right of establishment

C 144/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

15.6.2002

Question 2

Is the answer to Question 1 affected by whether the effective
date of the pay rise commences:

(i)

prior to the beginning of the woman’s maternity leave,

(ii) prior to the ending of the period of the earnings-related

period of her SMP, or

(iii) on some other date and, if so, on what date?

Question 3

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative,

(i)

how should the calculation or re-alculation of the normal
weekly earnings in the relevant period take into account
the pay rise?

(ii)

Should the relevant period be changed?

(iii) What allowance, if any, should be made for other factors
occurring within the period to which the pay rise relates
such as the numbers of hours worked, and the reason for
the pay increase?

(iv) Does it follow that if there is a reduction in pay after the
end of the relevant period but before the end of the
woman’s period of maternity leave, her SMP should be
calculated or
the
reduction of pay, and if so, how is this to be done?

re-calculated to take account of

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Conseil d’Etat,
section d’administration by judgment of that Court of
21 December 2001 in the case of Carlos Garcia Avello
against Etat Belge

(Case C-148/02)

(2002/C 144/44)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Conseil d’Etat,
section d’administration (Belgian Council of State, administrat-
ive section) of 21 December 2001, received at the Court
Registry on 24 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Carlos Garcia Avello against Etat Belge on the following
question:

Are the principles of Community law relating to European
citizenship and to the freedom of movement of persons,
enshrined particularly in Articles 17 [EC] and 18 [EC], to be

interpreted as precluding the Belgian administrative authority,
to which an application to change the surname of minor
children residing in Belgium who have dual Belgian and
Spanish nationality has been made on the ground, without
other special circumstances, that those children should bear
the surname to which they are entitled according to Spanish
law and tradition, from refusing that change by stating that
that type of application is habitually rejected on the ground
that, in Belgium, children bear their father’s surname’, particu-
larly where the position usually adopted by the authority
results from the fact that it considers that the grant of a
different surname may, in the context of social life in Belgium,
arouse questions as to the parentage of the child concerned,
but that, in order to reduce the difficulties associated with dual
nationality,
it is suggested to applicants in that situation
that they adopt only the father’s first surname, and that,
exceptionally, where there are few connecting factors to
Belgium or it is appropriate to re-establish the same surname
among siblings, a favourable decision may be taken?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace
di Genova by order of that Court of 18 April 2002 in the
action brought by Valentina Neri against the European
School of Economics (ESE INSIGHT World Education
System Ltd)

(Case C-153/02)

(2002/C 144/45)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Giudice di Pace di
Genova (Office of the Magistrate Genoa) of 18 April 2002,
received at the Court Registry on 26 April 2002,
for a
preliminary ruling in the action brought by Valentina Neri
against the European School of Economics (ESE INSIGHT
World Education System Ltd) on the following questions:

1. Are the rules or administrative practices of the national
legal order, such as those described at points III and IV
hereof, compatible with the principles of the EC Treaty
concerning the free movement of persons (Article 39 et
seq EC), the right of establishment (Article 43 et seq. EC)
and freedom to provide services (Article 49 et seq. EC), as
interpreted by the Court of Justice. Of particular relevance
in that regard are national rules and/or administrative
practices which:

15.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 144/27

— impede the Italian establishment of a limited com-
pany whose principal business is in the United
Kingdom from carrying on in the host state the
business of organising and administering courses of
study for preparation for university examinations,
for which the company is duly authorised and
accredited by the United Kingdom public auth-
orities?

— discriminate as between nationals pursuing the same

activities;

— require production of an attestation from the diplo-
matic representation — Italian consulate in the
foreign country in which the degree was awarded —
proving actual residence in that country by the
person concerned for the whole period of
the
university studies;

— limit recognition of degrees ‘solely’ to pursuit of a
profession already pursued in the State of origin,
thus precluding recognition for the purposes of
access to a regulated profession even though not
previously exercised.

— prohibit and/or seriously impede the Italian estab-
lishment of that undertaking in obtaining, in another
Member State and for valuable consideration, the
services conducive to the pursuit of the abovemen-
tioned activity;

— discourage students from enrolling in those courses

of study;

— impede the professional training of enrolled students
and the obtaining of an award capable of conferring
on its holder advantages either in securing access to
a professional activity or in exercising it with greater
reward in other Member States as well.

2. On an interpretation — herein requested — of Article 2
of Council Directive 89/48/EC (1), does that directive
confer rights which may be relied on also before acqui-
sition of the degree mentioned in Article 1 of the directive
itself. If the reply to that question is affirmative, does the
directive itself, regard also being had to the judgment in
Case C-145/99 Commission v Italian Republic [2001] (2),
permit rules or administrative practices in the national
legal order which:

— make recognition of university degrees obtained on
completion of
three years’
training of at
duration subject to the discretion of the public
authorities;

least

— grant recognition in Italy of degrees awarded by
universities recognised in the United Kingdom only
if completed after regular attendance for the whole
to the
course of studies at
exclusion therefore of degrees awarded to Italian
nationals on the basis of periods of study completed
with foreign institutions operating in Italy even
though they are approved and accredited by the
competent public authorities in the Member State to
which they belong;

those universities,

training’

3. What is the meaning and scope of the expression ‘harmful
in Council
interruption (...) of vocational
Decision 63/266/EEC (3) and does it cover the creation at
national level by the public authorities of a permanent
system of
information which evidences that degrees
awarded by a university, even though legally recognised
in the United Kingdom, cannot be recognised under
national legislation if they have been obtained on the
basis of periods of study completed in Italy.

(1) OJ L 19 of 24.1.1989, p. 16.
(2) OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002, p. 2.
(3) OJ 63 of 20.4.1963, p. 1338.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hässleholms
Tingsrätt by order of that Court of 22 April 2002 in the
case against Jan Nilsson

(Case C-154/02)

(2002/C 144/46)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Hässleholms Tingsrätt
(district court) of 22 April 2002, received at the Court Registry
on 26 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case against
Jan Nilsson on the following questions:

1) Do stuffed animals listed in Annex A fall within the

definition of ‘worked specimens’?

2) What is covered by the term ‘acquire’ in Article 8(3) of

Regulation No 338/97(1)?