Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 11 December 2003 in Case C-215/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Augsburg): Bruno Schnitzer (Freedom to provide services — Directive 64/427/EEC — Skilled services in the plastering trade — National rules requiring foreign skilled-trade undertakings to be entered on the trades register — Proportionality)
Date: 2004-02-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, Portugal, administrative formalities, freedom to provide services, interpretation of the law, type of business

21.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 47/3

The principle of cooperation arising from Article 10 EC imposes on
an administrative body an obligation to review a final administrative
decision, where an application for such review is made to it, in order
to take account of the interpretation of the relevant provision given in
the meantime by the Court where

— under national law, it has the power to reopen that decision;

— the administrative decision in question has become final as a
result of a judgment of a national court ruling at final instance;

— that judgment is, in the light of a decision given by the Court
subsequent to it, based on a misinterpretation of Community
law which was adopted without a question being referred to the
Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 234(3) EC; and

— the person concerned complained to the administrative body
immediately after becoming aware of that decision of the Court.

(1) OJ C 61 of 24.2.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 7 January 2004

in Case C-117/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division):
K.B. v National Health Service Pensions Agency, Secretary
of State for Health (1)

(Article 141 EC — Directive 75/117/EEC — Equal treatment
for men and women — Transsexual partner not entitled to a
survivor’s pension payable solely to a surviving spouse —
Discrimination on grounds of sex)

(2004/C 47/04)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-117/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales (Civil
Division) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between K.B. and National Health Service
Pensions Agency, Secretary of State for Health, on the interpret-
ation of Article 141 EC and of Council Directive 75/117/EEC
of 10 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the
Member States relating to the application of the principle of
equal pay for men and women (OJ 1975 L 45, p. 19), the Court,
composed of: V. Skouris, President, C.W.A. Timmermans,
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas (Presidents
of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, F. Macken,
N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,

Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 January 2004, in which
it has ruled:

Article 141 EC, in principle, precludes legislation, such as that at
issue before the national court, which, in breach of the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms, signed in Rome on 4 November 1950, prevents a couple
such as K.B. and R. from fulfilling the marriage requirement which
must be met for one of them to be able to benefit from part of the
pay of the other. It is for the national court to determine whether in a
case such as that in the main proceedings a person in K.B.’s situation
can rely on Article 141 EC in order to gain recognition of her right
to nominate her partner as the beneficiary of a survivor’s pension.

(1) OJ C 150 of 19.5.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 11 December 2003

in Case C-215/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Amtsgericht Augsburg): Bruno Schnitzer (1)

(Freedom to provide services — Directive 64/427/EEC —
Skilled services in the plastering trade — National rules
requiring foreign skilled-trade undertakings to be entered on
the trades register — Proportionality)

(2004/C 47/05)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-215/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Amtsgericht Augsburg (Germany) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings before that court against Bruno
Schnitzer, on the interpretation of Articles 49 EC, 50 EC, 54
EC and 55 EC and Council Directive 64/427/EEC of 7 July
1964 laying down detailed provisions concerning transitional
measures in respect of activities of self-employed persons in
manufacturing and processing industries falling within ISIC
Major Groups 23-40 (Industry and small craft industries) (OJ,
English Special Edition 1963-1964, p. 148), the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), acting
for the President of the Fifth Chamber, A. La Pergola and
S. von Bahr, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 11 December 2003, in which it has ruled:

C 47/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.2.2004

Community law on freedom to provide services precludes a business
from being subject to an obligation to be entered on the trades register
which delays, complicates or renders more onerous the provision of its
services in the host Member State where the conditions prescribed by
the directive governing recognition of professional qualifications
which is applicable to pursuit of that activity in the host Member
State are satisfied.

The mere fact that a business established in one Member State
supplies identical or similar services in a repeated or more or less
regular manner in a second Member State, without having an
infrastructure there enabling it to pursue a professional activity there
on a stable and continuous basis and, from the infrastructure, to hold
itself out to, amongst others, nationals of the second Member State,
cannot be sufficient for it to be regarded as established in the second
Member State.

(1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.

composed of: V. Skouris, acting for the President of the
Sixth Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, F. Macken and
N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 15 January 2004, in which it has
ruled:

Articles 1 and 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of
28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and
milk products sector do not authorise the competent body to act
directly, in cases other than that of direct sales, against a producer to
recover the amount owed by him in respect of the additional levy on
milk. However, the Member States’ obligation under Article 10 EC
to take measures to ensure collection of the levy in the event of the
mechanism provided for in Article 2(2) of that regulation being
frustrated includes the power to take direct action against the producer
with a view to recovering the amount payable where it is established
that the producer has not paid it to the purchaser and that the
purchaser is not taking due steps to collect it from the producer. On
the other hand, non-compliance with the conditions laid down in
Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March
1993 laying down detailed rules on the application of the additional
levy on milk and milk products, and in particular the absence of
approval as purchaser, is not in itself relevant.

(1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 15 January 2004

in Case C-230/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division):
The Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce v Peny-
coed Farming Partnership (1)

(Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 — Additional levy in the
milk and milk products sector — Deliveries by a producer to
a purchaser — Payment of levy — Recovery from the
producer)

(2004/C 47/06)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-230/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between The Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce
and Penycoed Farming Partnership, on the interpretation of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992
establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products
sector (OJ 1992 L 405, p. 1) and Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 laying down detailed rules
on the application of the additional levy on milk and milk
products (OJ 1993 L 57, p. 12), the Court (Sixth Chamber),

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 13 January 2004

in Case C-256/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division):
Debra Allonby v Accrington & Rossendale College, Edu-
cation Lecturing Services,
trading as Protocol Pro-
fessional, formerly Education Lecturing Services Sec-
retary of State for Education and Employment (1)

(Principle of equal pay for men and women — Direct effect
— Meaning of worker — Self-employed female lecturer
undertaking work presumed to be of equal value to that
which is undertaken in the same college by male lecturers
who are employees, but under contract with a third company
— Self-employed lecturers not eligible for membership of an
occupational pension scheme)

(2004/C 47/07)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-256/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)