Order of the Court of Justice (Fourth Chamber) of 5 April 2004 in Case C-3/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Veneto): Alessandro Mosconi, Ordine degli Ingegneri di Verona e Provincia v Soprintendenza per i Beni Ambientali e Architettonici di Venezia – Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 85/384/EEC — Mutual recognition of formal qualifications in architecture — Articles 10 and 11(g) — National legislation recognising the equivalence of qualifications in architecture and civil engineering, but reserving work on classified heritage buildings to architects — Principle of equal treatment — Situation purely internal to a Member State)
Date: 2004-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: freedom to provide services, interpretation of the law, recognition of diplomas, right of establishment, town-planning profession

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/25

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ORDER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

(Grand Chamber)

of 28 April 2004

in Case C-373/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberster Gerichtshof): Sakir Öztürk v Pensionsversi-
cherungsanstalt der Arbeiter) (1)

(Article 9 of the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement —
Article 3 of Decision No 3/80 — Principle of equal treatment
— Article 45(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Social
security for migrant workers — Retirement pension — Early
pension in the event of unemployment — Condition whereby
the worker must have received unemployment benefits in the
Member State concerned)

(2004/C 118/43)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-373/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Sakir
Öztürk and Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter - on the
interpretation of Article 9 of the Agreement establishing an
Association between the European Economic Community and
Turkey signed on 12 September 1963 at Ankara by the
Republic of Turkey, on the one hand, and the Member States
of the EEC and the Community, on the other, which was
concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Com-
munity by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December
1963 on the conclusion of the Agreement establishing an Asso-
ciation between the European Economic Community and
Turkey (Journal Officiel 1964 217, p. 3685), and of Article
45(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June
1971 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 (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December
1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1) - the Court (Grand Chamber),
composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmer-
mans, C. Gulmann and J. Cunha Rodrigues (Presidents of
Chambers),
J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), F.
Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and K. Lenaerts, Judges; D.
Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
has given a judgment on 28 April 2004, in which it has ruled:

Article 3(1) of Decision No 3/80 of the Association Council of 19
September 1980 on the application of the social security schemes of
the Member States of the European Communities to Turkish workers
and members of their families must be interpreted as precluding the
application of legislation of a Member State which makes entitlement
to an early old-age pension in the event of unemployment conditional
upon fulfilment of the requirement that the person concerned has
received, within a certain period prior to his application for the
pension, unemployment insurance benefits from that Member State
alone.

(1) OJ C 7 of 11.1.2003

(Fourth Chamber)

of 5 April 2004

in Case C-3/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Veneto): Ales-
sandro Mosconi, Ordine degli
Ingegneri di Verona e
Provincia v Soprintendenza per i Beni Ambientali e Archi-
tettonici di Venezia – Ministero per i Beni e le Attività
Culturali (1)

the Rules of Procedure — Directive
(Article 104(3) of
85/384/EEC — Mutual recognition of formal qualifications
in architecture — Articles 10 and 11(g) — National legisla-
tion recognising the equivalence of qualifications in architec-
ture and civil engineering, but reserving work on classified
heritage buildings to architects — Principle of equal treat-
ment — Situation purely internal to a Member State)

(2004/C 118/44)

(Language of the case: Italian)

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

In Case C-3/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale per il Veneto
(Italy)
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Alessandro Mosconi, Ordine degli
Ingegneri di Verona e Provincia and Soprintendenza per i Beni
Ambientali e Architettonici di Venezia – Ministero per i Beni e
le Attività Culturali, in the presence of: Comune di San Martino
Buon Albergo (VR), Consiglio Nazionale degli Architetti, Piani-
ficatori, Paesaggisti e Conservatori, Ordine degli Archittetti de
Verona and Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri – on the inter-
pretation of Council Directive 85/384/EEC of 10 June 1985 on
the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other
evidence of
including
measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of estab-
lishment and freedom to provide services (OJ 1985 L 223, p.
15), in particular Articles 10 and 11(g) of that directive, and on
the principle of equal treatment – the Court (Fourth Chamber),
composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of
the Chamber, A. La Pergola and S. von Bahr, Judges; P. Léger,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on 5
April 2004, in which it has ruled:

formal qualifications in architecture,

In matters purely internal to a Member State, neither Council Direc-
tive 85/384/EEC of 10 June 1985 on the mutual recognition of
diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in
architecture, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the
right of establishment and freedom to provide services, in particular
Articles 10 and 11(g) thereof, nor the principle of equal treatment

C 118/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

precludes national legislation which recognises in principle the equiva-
lence of qualifications in architecture and civil engineering, but reser-
ving work on inter alia classified heritage buildings to architects only.

ment pension in the five years prior to the normal age of retirement, a
reduction of five per cent for each year in which the pension is taken
in advance.

(1) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002

(1) OJ C 156 of 29. 6. 2002.

ORDER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

ORDER OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE

(Third Chamber)

of 30 April 2004

(Third Chamber)

of 27 April 2004

in Case C-172/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour de cassation): Robert Bourgard v Institut national
indépendants
d'assurances

sociales pour

travailleurs

(Inasti) (1)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Social policy —
Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social
security — Directive 79/7/EEC — Self-employed workers —
Derogation allowed for the determination of pensionable age
— Possibility for male workers to claim early entitlement to
old-age pension — Limited to forms of discrimination neces-
sary and objectively linked to the difference in pensionable
ages — Method of calculation — Reduction for early entitle-
ment)

(2004/C 118/45)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case C-172/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Cour de cassation (Belgium), seeking to obtain, in the
proceedings pending before that court between Robert Bour-
gard and Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs
indépendants (Inasti), a preliminary ruling on the interpretation
of Article 7(1)(a) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19
December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the prin-
ciple of equal treatment for men and women in matters of
social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24) – the Court
(Third
Chamber), composed of A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the
Chamber, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric,
J. Kokott,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 30
April 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

Judges;

Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978
on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment
for men and women in matters of social security, read in conjunction
with Article 7(1)(a), must be interpreted as meaning that, where the
national legislation of a Member State has maintained a difference of
retirement ages for men and women,
it does not preclude that
Member State, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings
in this case, from calculating the amount of the retirement pension
differently according to the sex of the worker and from applying to
male workers, who alone have the right to apply for an early retire-

in Case C-358/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal du travail de Bruxelles): Yamina Haddad v
Belgian State (1)

(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Cooperation
Agreement EEC-Morocco — Article 41(1) — Persons covered
— Principle of non-discrimination in matters of social
security — Disability allowance)

(2004/C 118/46)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case C-358/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Tribunal du travailed Bruxelles,
for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Yamina Haddad and Belgian State – on the interpretation of
Article 41(1) of the Cooperation Agreement between the Euro-
pean Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco,
signed in Rabat on 27 April 1976 and approved on behalf of
the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2211/78 of
26 September 1978 (OJ 1978 L 264, p. 1) – the Court (Third
Chamber), composed of: A Rosas, President of the Chamber, R.
Schintgen (Rapporteur) and K. Schiemann,
Judges; Advocate
General: F.G. Jacobs; Registrar: R. Grass, made an order on 27
April 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

Article 41(1) of the Cooperation Agreement between the European
Economic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco, signed in Rabat
on 27 April 1976 and approved on behalf of the Community by
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2211/78 of 26 September 1978,
must be interpreted as meaning that it does not apply to the case of a
the wife of an unemployed
student with Moroccan nationality,
Moroccan national who is also unemployed both resident
in a
Member State which refuses to grant a disability allowance to the clai-
mant, when the couple are insured on a voluntary basis under the
sickness insurance scheme of that State, where it is not proven that
the claimant lives with a worker of Moroccan nationality with whom
she has a close family relationship.

(1) OJ C 305 of 7.12.2002.