Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 28 April 2004 in Case C-373/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Sakir Öztürk v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter) (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)
Date: 2004-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Türkiye, association agreement (EU), equal treatment, interpretation of the law, migrant worker, pension scheme, social security, unemployment insurance

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