Case C-341/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 December 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbetsdomstolen — Sweden) — Laval un Partneri Ltd v Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundet, Svenska Byggnadsarbetareförbundets avd. 1, Byggettan, Svenska Elektrikerförbundet (Freedom to provide services — Directive 96/71/EC — Posting of workers in the construction industry — National legislation laying down terms and conditions of employment covering the matters referred to in Article 3(1), first subparagraph, (a) to (g), save for minimum rates of pay — Collective agreement for the building sector the terms of which lay down more favourable conditions or relate to other matters — Possibility for trade unions to attempt, by way of collective action, to force undertakings established in other Member States to negotiate on a case by case basis in order to determine the rates of pay for workers and to sign the collective agreement for the building sector)
Date: 2007-12-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Sweden, collective agreement, free movement of workers, freedom to provide services, interpretation of the law, trade union, trade union rights

23.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/9

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie

Defendant: R.N.G. Eind

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Nederlandse Raad van
State — Interpretation of 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, English
Special Edition 1968(II), p. 475) and of Council Directive
90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence (OJ 1990
L 180, p. 26) — Interpretation of Article 18 EC — Right of
residence of a family member who is a national of a non-
member country — Existence of such a right in the absence of
genuine and actual work on the part of the worker — Return of
the worker to his or her State of origin — No right of residence
in that State for the family member

Operative part of the judgment

1) In the event of a Community worker returning to the Member
State of which he is a national, Community law does not require
the authorities of that State to grant a right of entry and residence
to a third-country national who is a member of
that worker's
in the host Member State
family because of the mere fact that,
where that worker was gainfully employed,
third-country
issued on the basis of
national held a valid residence permit
Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of
15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the
Community,
(EEC)
by
as
No 2434/92 of 27 July 1992.

Council Regulation

amended

that

2) When a worker returns to the Member State of which he is a
national, after being gainfully employed in another Member State,
a third-country national who is a member of his family has a right
under Article 10(1)(a) of Regulation No 1612/68 as amended by
Regulation No 2434/92, which applies by analogy, to reside in
the Member State of which the worker is a national, even where
that worker does not carry on any effective and genuine economic
activities. The fact that a third-country national who is a member
of a Community worker's family did not, before residing in the
Member State where the worker was employed, have a right under
national law to reside in the Member State of which the worker is
a national has no bearing on the determination of that national's
right to reside in the latter State.

(1) OJ C 296, 26.11.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 December
2007 (reference for
a preliminary ruling from the
Arbetsdomstolen — Sweden) — Laval un Partneri
Svenska
Ltd
Byggnadsarbetareförbundets avd. 1, Byggettan, Svenska
Elektrikerförbundet

Byggnadsarbetareförbundet,

Svenska

v

(Case C-341/05) (1)

(Freedom to provide services — Directive 96/71/EC —
Posting of workers in the construction industry — National
legislation laying down terms and conditions of employment
covering the matters referred to in Article 3(1), first sub-
paragraph, (a) to (g), save for minimum rates of pay —
Collective agreement for the building sector the terms of
which lay down more favourable conditions or relate to other
matters — Possibility for trade unions to attempt, by way of
collective action, to force undertakings established in other
Member States to negotiate on a case by case basis in order to
determine the rates of pay for workers and to sign the collec-
tive agreement for the building sector)

(2008/C 51/15)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Arbetsdomstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Laval un Partneri Ltd

Svenska

Defendants:
Svenska
Byggnadsarbetareförbundets avd. 1, Byggettan, Svenska Elektri-
kerförbundet

Byggnadsarbetareförbundet,

Re:

and of

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Arbetsdomstolen — Inter-
pretation of Articles 12 EC and 49 EC and of Articles 3(1); 3(7);
3(8); 3(10) and Article 4 of Directive 96/71/EC of the European
Parliament
the Council of 16 December 1996
concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the
provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1) — Collective action
against a construction company which supplied paid workers in
a Member State other than that of its head office and which did
not enter into a collective agreement in that State.

C 51/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.2.2008

Operative part of the judgment

Defendant: Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund

1) Article 49 EC and Article 3 of Directive 96/71/EC of

the
European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996
concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision
of services are to be interpreted as precluding a trade union, in a
Member State in which the terms and conditions of employment
covering the matters referred to in Article 3(1), first subparagraph,
(a) to (g) of that directive are contained in legislative provisions,
save for minimum rates of pay,
from attempting, by means of
collective action in the form of a blockade ('blockad') of sites such
as that at issue in the main proceedings, to force a provider of
services established in another Member State to enter into negotia-
tions with it on the rates of pay for posted workers and to sign a
collective agreement the terms of which lay down, as regards some
of those matters, more favourable conditions than those resulting
from the relevant legislative provisions, while other terms relate to
matters not referred to in Article 3 of the directive;

2) Where there is a prohibition in a Member State against trade
unions undertaking collective action with the aim of having a
collective agreement between other parties set aside or amended,
Articles 49 EC and 50 EC preclude that prohibition from being
subject to the condition that such action must relate to terms and
conditions of employment
law applies
directly.

to which the national

(1) OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 Decem-
ber 2007 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Sozialgericht Berlin and Landessozialgericht Berlin-
Brandenburg — Germany) — Doris Habelt (C-396/05),
Martha Möser (C-419/05) and Peter Wachter (C-450/05) v
Deutsche Rentenversicherung Bund

(Joined Cases C-396/05, C-419/05 and C-450/05) (1)

(Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Annexes
III and VI — Freedom of movement
for persons —
Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and 42 EC — Old-age benefits —
Periods of contribution completed outside the Federal Republic
of Germany — Not exportable)

(2008/C 51/16)

Language of the case: German

Referring courts

Sozialgericht Berlin and Landessozialgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Doris Habelt (C-396/05), Martha Möser (C-419/05)
and Peter Wachter (C-450/05)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sozialgericht Berlin —
Interpretation of Article 42 of the EC Treaty — Validity of
Annex VI D. (Germany), No 1, to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
on the application of social security schemes to employed
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of
their
families moving within the Community (OJ, English special
to pay
edition, 1971 (II), p. 416), as amended — Refusal
German old-age benefits in respect of periods of employment
completed between 1939 and 1945 in the Sudetenland to a
German national who has taken up residence in Belgium

Operative part of the judgment

1) The provisions of Annex VI, Part C, headed ‘Germany’, point 1, to
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council 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
in the version amended and updated by
within the Community,
Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, are
incompatible with freedom of movement for persons, and, in par-
ticular, with Article 42 EC,
in
circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, to make the
inclusion, for the purposes of the payment of old-age benefits, of
contribution periods completed between 1937 and 1945 on the
parts of the territory where the social security legislation of the
German Reich was applicable, but which are outside the territory of
the Federal Republic of Germany, subject to the condition that the
recipient reside in the territory of that Member State.

in that they make it possible,

(e),

2) The provisions of Annex III, Parts A and B, point 35, headed
‘Germany-Austria’, under
to Regulation No 1408/71, as
amended, are incompatible with Article 39 EC and Article 42 EC
in that they make it possible, in circumstances such as those in the
main proceedings, where the recipient resides in Austria, to make
the inclusion, for the purposes of the payment of old-age benefits,
of contribution periods completed under the law on pension rights
acquired by contribution abroad (Fremdrentengesetz) between 1953
and 1970 in Romania subject to the condition that the recipient
reside in the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany.

for persons and,

3) The provisions of Annex VI, Part C, headed ‘Germany’, point 1, to
Regulation No 1408/71, as amended, are incompatible with
freedom of movement
in particular, with
Article 42 EC, in that they make it possible, in circumstances such
as those in the main proceedings, to make the inclusion, for the
purposes of the payment of old-age benefits, of contribution periods
completed under the law on pension rights acquired by contribution
abroad between 1953 and 1970 in Romania subject to the condi-
tion that the recipient reside in the territory of the Federal Republic
of Germany.

(1) OJ C 22, 28.1.2006.
OJ C 22, 25.3.2006.