Case C-40/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Överklagandenämnden för högskolan, Sweden) — Kaj Lyyski v Umeå universitet (Freedom of movement for workers — Article 39 CE — Obstacles — Vocational training — Teachers — Refusal to admit to a training course a candidate employed in a school in another Member State)
Date: 2007-02-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, Sweden, educational institution, interpretation of the law, teacher training, teaching, vocational training

24.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/3

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the appeal.

2. Orders Technische Glaswerke

in addition to
bearing its own costs, to pay the total costs of the Commission of
the European Communities related to the interlocutory proceedings
and to these proceedings.

Ilmenau GmbH,

3. Orders Technische Glaswerke Ilmenau GmbH to pay the costs

incurred by Schott AG in the interlocutory proceedings.

4. Orders Schott AG to bear its own costs related to these proceed-

ings.

(1) OJ C 273, 6.11.2004.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 9 January 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Länssratten i
Stockholms län — Migrationsdomstolen) — Yunying Jia v
Migrationsverket

(Case C-1/05) (1)

(Freedom of establishment — Article 43 EC — Directive
73/148/EEC — National of one Member State established in
another Member State — Right to residence of a spouse's
parent, the spouse and the parent being nationals of a non-
Member country — Requirement that the parent be lawfully
resident in a Member State when joining his family in the
Member State of establishment — Evidence required to show
that the parent is a dependant)

(2007/C 42/04)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Länsrätten i Stockholms län — Migrationsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Yunying Jia

Defendant: Migrationsverket

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Utlänningsnämnden (Alien
Appeals Board)
(Sweden) — Interpretation of Article 43 EC,
Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of
15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within
the Community (OJ L 257, p. 2) and Articles 1(d) and 6(b) of
Council Directive 73/148/EEC of 21 May 1973 on the abolition
of restrictions on movement and residence within the Com-
munity for nationals of Member States with regard to establish-
ment and the provision of services (OJ L 172, p. 14) — Right

to residence of a parent of a spouse, both holding the nation-
ality of a non-Member State, of a national of a Member State
resident in another Member State who is dependent on that
citizen — Requirement for that parent to reside lawfully in a
Member State when joining his family — Evidence required to
show that the parent is a dependent

Operative part of the judgment

1. Having regard to the judgment in Case C-109/01 Akrich [2003]
ECR I-9607, Community law does not require Member States to
make the grant of a residence permit to nationals of a non-Member
State, who are members of the family of a Community national
who has exercised his or her right of free movement, subject to the
condition that those family members have previously been residing
lawfully in another Member State;

2. Article 1(1)(d) of Council Directive 73/148/EEC of 21 May
1973 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence
within the Community for nationals of Member States with regard
to establishment and the provision of services is to be interpreted to
the effect that ‘dependent on them’ means that members of the
family of a Community national established in another Member
State within the meaning of Article 43 EC need the material
support of that Community national or his or her spouse in order
to meet their essential needs in the State of origin of those family
members or the State from which they have come at the time when
they apply to join that Community national. Article 6(b) of that
directive must be interpreted as meaning that proof of the need for
material support may be adduced by any appropriate means, while
a mere undertaking from the Community national or his or her
the family members concerned need not be
spouse to support
regarded as establishing the existence of the family members' situa-
tion of real dependence.

(1) OJ C 57, 5.3.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 11 January
2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Överkla-
gandenämnden för högskolan, Sweden) — Kaj Lyyski v
Umeå universitet

(Case C-40/05) (1)

(Freedom of movement for workers — Article 39 CE —
Obstacles — Vocational training — Teachers — Refusal to
admit to a training course a candidate employed in a school in
another Member State)

(2007/C 42/05)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Överklagandenämnden för högskolan

C 42/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.2.2007

Parties to the main proceedings

Re:

Applicant: Kaj Lyyski

Defendant: Umeå universitet

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Överklagandenämnden för
högskolan (Board of Appeals for Higher Education) — Interpre-
tation of Community law and in particular of Article 12 EC —
Professional training scheme organised to remedy a lack of
qualified teachers in a Member State intended to allow teachers
employed in schools to obtain the qualifications necessary for a
contract unlimited as to time — Refusal to admit a candidate
who is a national of that Member State but employed in a
school in another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

Community law does not preclude national legislation which organises,
on a provisional basis, training courses intended in the short term to
meet the need for qualified teachers in a State from requiring that
candidates for that training be employed in a school
in that State,
provided, however, that the manner in which that legislation is applied
does not lead to the exclusion, as a matter of principle, of all applica-
tions made by teachers who are not employed in such a school without
prior individual assessment of the merits of those applications in the
light, inter alia, of the aptitude of the person concerned, and the possi-
bility of monitoring the practical part of
the training received or
possibly of exempting that person from it.

(1) OJ C 93, 16.4.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 11 January 2007
— Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

(Case C-175/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
92/100/EEC — Copyright — Rental and lending right —
Exclusive public lending right — Derogation — Condition of
remuneration — Exemption — Scope)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Breach of Arti-
cles 1 and 5 of Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November
1992 on rental right and lending right and on certain rights
intellectual property (OJ
related to copyright in the field of
1992 L 346, p. 6) — Derogation from the exclusive public
lending right — Scope

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1) Declares that, by exempting all categories of public lending estab-
lishments, within the meaning of Council Directive 92/100/EEC
of 19 November 1992 on rental right and lending right and on
certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual prop-
erty,
from the obligation to remunerate authors for the lending
carried out by them, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Articles 1 and 5 of that directive;

2) Orders Ireland to pay the costs;

3) Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay its own costs.

(1) OJ C 155, 25.6.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 11 January
the European Communities v
2007 — Commission of

Ireland

(Case C-183/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
92/43/EEC — Articles 12(1) and (2), 13(1)(b) and 16 —
Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora
— Protection of species)

(2007/C 42/07)

Language of the case: English

(2007/C 42/06)

Parties

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. van Beek, Agent, assisted by M. Wemaëre, avocat)

Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O'Hagan, Agent)

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Shotter and W. Wils, Agents)

Re:

Defendant: Ireland (represented by: D. O'Hagan, Agent, E. Regan
SC, J. Gormley, Advisory Counsel)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (repre-
sented by: I. del Cuvillo Contreras, Agent)

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Defective trans-
position of Articles 12(1) and (2), 13(1)(b) and 16 of Council
Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of
natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206,
p. 7)