JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Full Court) 23 March 2004 — In Case C-138/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main): Brian Francis Collins v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (‘Freedom of movement for persons — Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) — Concept of “worker” — Social security allowance paid to jobseekers — Residence requirement — Citizenship of the European Union’)
Date: 2004-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU employment policy, free movement of workers, preliminary issue, social security legislation

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/9

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (FULL COURT)

(Fifth Chamber)

of 25 March 2004

23 March 2004

in Case C-118/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal Supremo): Industrias de Deshidratación Agrí-
cola SA v Administración del Estado (1)

In Case C-138/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt am Main): Brian Francis
Collins v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1)

(‘Regulations (EC) No 603/95 and No 785/95 — Dried
fodder — Aid scheme — Conditions to be met by processing
imposed under
undertakings — Additional

requirements

national rules’)

(2004/C 106/13)

(‘Freedom of movement for persons — Article 48 of the EC
Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) — Concept of
“worker” — Social security allowance paid to jobseekers —
the European
Residence

requirement — Citizenship of

Union’)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

(2004/C 106/14)

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

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-118/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain) for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Industrias
de Deshidratación Agrícola SA and Administración del Estado
Ä on the interpretation of, in particular, Council Regulation
(EC) No 603/95 of 21 February 1995 on the common organi-
sation of the market in dried fodder (OJ 1995 L 63, p. 1) and
Commission Regulation (EC) No 785/95 of 6 April 1995
laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation No
603/95 (OJ 1995 L 79, p. 5) Ä the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), acting for the President of
the Fifth Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, A. La Pergola
and S. von Bahr, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R.
Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 March 2004, in
which it has ruled:

Council Regulation (EC) No 603/95 of 21 February 1995 on
the common organisation of the market in dried fodder and
Commission Regulation (EC) No 785/95 of 6 April 1995
laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation No
603/95 must be interpreted as meaning that
they do not
preclude national provisions which lay down specific require-
ments with respect to green or fresh fodder for processing,
linked to the method of delivery, the moisture content, the
time within which processing must take place and the growth
of such fodder within a specified area.

(1) OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.

In Case C-138/02: References to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Social Security Commissioner (United Kingdom) for
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Brian Francis Collins and Secretary of State
for Work and Pensions, on the interpretation of Regulation
(EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on
freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ,
English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475), as amended by
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2434/92 of 27 July 1992 (OJ
1992 L 245, p. 1), and of Council Directive 68/360/EEC of 15
October 1968 on the abolition of restrictions on movement
and residence within the Community for workers of Member
States and their families (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II),
p. 485), the Court (Full Court), composed of: V. Skouris, Presi-
dent, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha
Rodrigues (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Presidents of Chambers,
A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, 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 23 March 2004, in which it has ruled:

1. A person in the circumstances of

the appellant

in the main
proceedings is not a worker for the purposes of Title II of Part I of
Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October
1968 on freedom of movement
for workers within the Com-
munity, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2434/92
of 27 July 1992. It is, however, for the national court or tribunal
to establish whether the term “worker” as referred to by the
national legislation at issue is to be understood in that sense.

C 106/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

State for Social Security – on the interpretation of Article 119 of
the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been
replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) and the judgment in
Case C-342/93 Gillespie and Others [1996] ECR I-475 – the
Court (Full Court), composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann,
C.W.A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and
A. Rosas, Presidents of Chambers, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puisso-
chet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), F. Macken and N. Colneric,
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 30
March 2004, in which it has ruled:

the appellant

2. A person in the circumstances of

in the main
proceedings does not have a right to reside in the United Kingdom
solely on the basis of Council Directive 68/360/EEC of 15
October 1968 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and
residence within the Community for workers of Member States and
their families.

3. The right to equal treatment laid down in Article 48(2) of the EC
Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39(2) EC), read in conjunc-
tion with Articles 6 and 8 of the EC Treaty (now, after amend-
ment, Articles 12 EC and 17 EC), does not preclude national
legislation which makes entitlement
to a jobseeker's allowance
conditional on a residence requirement, in so far as that require-
ment may be justified on the basis of objective considerations that
are independent of the nationality of the persons concerned and
proportionate to the legitimate aim of the national provisions.

(1) OJ C 169 of 13.07.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Full Court)

of 30 March 2004

1. Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the Treaty
have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) must be inter-
preted as requiring that, in so far as the pay received by the worker
during her maternity leave is determined at least in part on the
basis of the pay she earned before her maternity leave began, any
pay rise awarded between the beginning of the period covered by
the reference pay and the end of the maternity leave must be
included in the elements of pay taken into account in calculating
the amount of such pay. This requirement is not limited to cases
where the pay rise is back-dated to the period covered by the refer-
ence pay.

in Case C-147/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)):
Michelle K. Alabaster v Woolwich plc, Secretary of State
for Social Security (1)

(‘Social policy — Men and women — Equal pay — Pay
during maternity leave — Calculation of amount — Whether
to include a pay rise’)

(2004/C 106/15)

(Language of the case: English)

2. Absent any Community legislation in this sphere,
it is for the
in compliance
competent national authorities to determine how,
with all
the provisions of Community law, and in particular
Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the intro-
duction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and
health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently
given birth or are breastfeeding (tenth individual directive within
the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), any pay
rise awarded before or during maternity leave must be included in
the elements of pay used to calculate the pay due to a worker
during maternity leave.

In Case C-147/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Michelle K. Alabaster and Woolwich plc, Secretary of

(1) OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.