Case C-372/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozialgericht by order of that Court of 15 August 2002 in the case of Roberto Adanez-Vega against Bundesanstalt für Arbeit
Date: 2003-01-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, Germany, Spain, interpretation of the law, national service, social legislation, unemployment insurance

11.1.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 7/7

Tilmann Klett and Bundesministerin für Bildung, Wissenschaft
und Kultur — on the interpretation of Article 12 EC, Article 19
EC, Article 19b of Council Directive 78/686/EEC of 25 July
1978 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certifi-
cates and other evidence of
the formal qualifications of
practitioners of dentistry, including measures to facilitate the
effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to
provide services (OJ 1978 L 233, p. 1), as amended by the Act
concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of
Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden
and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European
Union is founded (OJ 1994 C 241, p. 21 and OJ 1995 L 1,
p. 1), and Articles 3 and 9 of Council Directive 93/16/EEC of
5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and
the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other
evidence of formal qualifications (OJ 1993 L 165, p. 1), as
(Fourth
amended by that act of accession — the Court
Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermanns (Rapporteur),
President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and S. von Bahr,
Judges: A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
made an order on 5 November 2002, the operative part of
which is as follows:

Article 19b of Council Directive 78/686/EEC of 25 July 1978
concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other
evidence of the formal qualifications of practitioners of dentistry,
including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of
establishment and freedom to provide services, as amended by the Act
concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the
Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments
to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, must be
interpreted as meaning that a person whose qualification in general
medical practice has not been awarded by an Austrian university
cannot be admitted to the specialist training in dentistry given in that
Member State.

( 1) OJ No C 227, 11.8.01.

of
the European Communities (Fifth Chamber, Extended
Composition) of 7 June 2001 in Case T-187/99 Agrana Zucker
und Stärke v Commission [2001] ECR II-1587, seeking to
have that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings
being: Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
M. Erhart and D. Triantafyllou) — the Court (Third Chamber),
composed of J.-P. Puissochet, President of
the Chamber,
F. Macken and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), Judges:
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made
an order on 5 November 2002, the operative part of which is
as follows:

1.

The appeal is dismissed;

2. Agrana Zucker and Stärke AG shall pay the costs.

(1) OJ No C 303, 27.10.01.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-
gericht by order of that Court of 15 August 2002 in the
case of Roberto Adanez-Vega against Bundesanstalt für
Arbeit

(Case C-372/02)

(2003/C 7/13)

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 5 November 2002

in Case C-321/01 P: Agrana Zucker und Stärke AG (1)

(Appeal — State aid — Act of Accession of the Republic of
Austria — Joint Declaration No 31 annexed to the Final Act
of the Treaty of Accession of the Republic of Austria)

(2003/C 7/12)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-321/01 P: Agrana Zucker und Stärke AG, established
in Vienna (Austria) (Lawyers: W. Barfuß and H. Wollmann) —
Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht
(Federal Social Court) of 15 August 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 16 October 2002, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Roberto Adanez-Vega against Bundesanstalt für
Arbeit on the following questions:

1.

Is a person who claims benefits under German unemploy-
ment insurance more than two months after completing
his compulsory national service in Spain subject to

(a)

Spanish legislation under Article 13(2)(e) of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 (1)
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 (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (2),
as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2195/
91 of 25 June 1991 (3) — hereinafter, ‘Regulation
1408/71’ — or

C 7/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

11.1.2003

(b) German legislation under Article 13(2)(f) of Regu-

bb)

If the answer to Question 3(c)(aa) is affirmative:

lation 1408/71?

2.

If the answer to Question 1(a) is affirmative:

(a)

does compulsory national service undertaken in
Spain constitute ‘last employment in the territory of
a Member State other than the competent State’
within the meaning of Article 71(1) of Regulation
1408/71?

(b)

If the answer to Question 2(a) is affirmative:

does the first sentence of Article 71(1)(b)(ii) of
Regulation 1408/71 also mean that the last employ-
ment completed in the territory of a Member State
other than the competent State is to be taken into
account for the purposes of benefits to unemployed
persons as if it had been completed in the State of
residence, without regard to the requirements stated
in Article 67 of Regulation 1408/71?

c)

If the answer to Question 2(b) is negative:

in what circumstances is a period of national
service that, under national (Spanish) law, does not
constitute a period of insurance for unemployment
insurance purposes or is not treated as such, to be
considered a period of employment completed as
an employed person under the legislation of another
Member State in accordance with Article 67(1) of
Regulation 1408/71?

3.

If the answer to Question 1(b) is affirmative:

a)

has a person whose last period of insurance in
Germany came to an end more than one year
previously, after which he carried out compulsory
national service in Spain for nine months, ‘com-
pleted lastly’ periods of insurance under German law
within the meaning of Article 67(3) of Regulation
1408/71

b)

If the answer to Question 3(a) is affirmative:

in what circumstances is a period of national
service that, under national (Spanish) law, does not
constitute a period of insurance for unemployment
insurance purposes or is not treated as such, to be
considered a period of employment completed as
an employed person under the legislation of another
Member State in accordance with Article 67(1) of
Regulation 1408/71? (as per Question 2(c)).

c)

If Article 67(1) of Regulation 1408/71 should not
apply to the claimant (Questions 3(a) and (b)):

aa) does compulsory national service undertaken
in Spain constitute ‘last employment in the
territory of a Member State other than the
competent State’ within the meaning of
Article 71(1) of Regulation 1408/71? (as per
Question 2(a)).

does the first sentence of Article 71(1)(b)(ii) of
Regulation 1408/71 also mean that the last
employment completed in the territory of a
Member State other than the competent State
is to be taken into account for the purposes of
benefits to unemployed persons as if it had
been completed in the State of residence,
without regard to the requirements stated in
Article 67 of Regulation 1408/71? (as per
Question 2(b)).

4.

If the period of Spanish compulsory national service
cannot be taken into account under Articles 71 or 67 of
Regulation 1408/71 for the purposes of the claimant’s
to benefit under German unemployment
entitlement
insurance,
is there any such entitlement under the
principle of equality of treatment in Article 3 of Regu-
lation 1408/71 or under any other general provisions of
European law?

(1) OJ L 149 of 05.07.1971, p. 2.
(2) OJ L 230 of 22.08.1983, p. 6.
(3) OJ L 206 of 29.07.1991, p. 2.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
Gerichtshof (Austria) by order of that Court of 17 Septem-
ber 2002 in the appeal between Sakir Öztürk and Pen-
sionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter

(Case C-373/02)

(2003/C 7/14)

Reference has been made to the Court of
Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof
(Austria) (Supreme Court) of 17 September 2002, received at
the Court Registry on 17 October 2002, for a preliminary
ruling in the appeal between Sakir Öztürk and Pensionsversich-
erungsanstalt der Arbeiter on the following questions:

1.

Is the law concerning the association between the Euro-
pean Economic Community and Turkey (in particular
Article 9 of the Agreement establishing an Association
between the European Economic Community and Turkey
of 12 September 1963) to be interpreted as precluding a
rule of a Member State which requires inter alia, as a
condition of entitlement to an early old-age pension in
the event of unemployment, that the worker concerned
must have drawn a cash benefit on account of his
insurance
unemployment
scheme of that Member State within a certain period
prior to the qualifying date?

from the unemployment