Case C-212/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht by order of that court of 10 February 2005 in Gertraud Hartmann v Freistaat Bayern
Date: 2005-08-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, Germany, equal treatment, family benefit, free movement of workers, frontier worker, interpretation of the law, migrant worker, worker (EU)

6.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/9

The preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice of the European
Communities is requested on the following questions which
arise on the interpretation of Article 1(b) of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of
a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products (1)
(hereafter ‘the Regulation’):

1. In a case in which the basic patent protects a second
medical application of a therapeutic agent what is meant by
‘product’ in Article 1 (b) of the Regulation and in particular
does the application of the therapeutic agent play any part
in the definition of ‘product’ for the purpose of the Regu-
lation?

2. Does the term ‘combination of active ingredients of a medic-
inal product’ within the meaning of Article l(b) of the Regu-
lation mean that each component of the combination must
have therapeutic activity?

3. Is there a ‘combination of active ingredients of a medicinal
product’ where a combination of substances comprising two
components of which one component is a substance with a
therapeutic effect for a specific indication and the other
component
the medicinal
product that brings about efficacy of the medicinal product
for that indication?

renders possible a form of

(1) OJ L 182, 02.07.1992, p. 1

Gertraud Hartmann and Freistaat Bayern on the following ques-
tions:

(a) Is a German national who, while continuing his employ-
ment relationship as a post office official
in Germany,
moved his permanent residence from Germany to Austria
in 1990 and has since then carried on his occupation as a
frontier worker to be regarded as a migrant worker within
the meaning of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (1) of the
Council on freedom of movement for workers within the
Community (‘Regulation No 1612/68’) for periods between
January 1994 and September 1998?

(b) If so:

it

constitute

Does
indirect discrimination within the
meaning of Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68 if the
non-working spouse of the person mentioned in (a), who
lives in Austria and is an Austrian national, was excluded
from receiving German child-raising allowance in the
period in question because she did not have either her
permanent
residence or her habitual place of stay in
Germany?

(1) OJ, English Special Edition, 1968 /II), p. 475.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozial-
gericht by order of that court of 10 February 2005 in
Gertraud Hartmann v Freistaat Bayern

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozial-
gericht by order of that court of 10 February 2005 in
Wendy Geven v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

(Case C-212/05)

(2005/C 193/15)

(Language of the case: German)

(Case C-213/05)

(2005/C 193/16)

(Language of the case: German)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht of 10
February 2005, received at the Court Registry on 17 May
2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht of 10
February 2005, received at the Court Registry on 17 May
2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between
Wendy Geven and Land Nordrhein-Westfalen on the following
question: