OF THAT TREATY .
2 THESE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN RAISED WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST , ON THE ONE HAND , A BRITISH NATIONAL WHO SPENT SEVERAL MONTHS IN ITALY AND , ON THE OTHER , AN ITALIAN NATIONAL WHO GAVE HER ACCOMMODATION .
3 THE SAID BRITISH NATIONAL IS ALLEGED TO HAVE FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE OBLIGATION TO REPORT , WITHIN THREE DAYS OF HER ENTRY INTO THE TERRITORY OF THE ITALIAN REPUBLIC , TO THE POLICE AUTHORITIES OF THE PLACE WHERE SHE WAS STAYING ' IN ORDER TO NOTIFY ( HER ) PRESENCE AND TO MAKE A DECLARATION OF RESIDENCE ' . THIS OBLIGATION IS IMPOSED BY ITALIAN LEGISLATION ON ALL FOREIGN NATIONALS , WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF EMPLOYED WORKERS FROM OTHER MEMBER STATES , AND THE PENALTIES PROVIDED FOR IN THE EVENT OF A FAILURE TO DISCHARGE IT ARE A MAXIMUM FINE OF LIT . 80 000 OR A MAXIMUM OF THREE MONTHS ' DETENTION AND , IN ADDITION , POSSIBLE DEPORTATION FROM THE NATIONAL TERRITORY , ENTAILING A PROHIBITION ON RE-ENTRY WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE MINISTER FOR THE INTERIOR .
4 THE ITALIAN NATIONAL IS CHARGED WITH HAVING FAILED TO INFORM THE SAID AUTHORITIES WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR HOURS OF THE IDENTITY OF THE BRITISH NATIONAL IN QUESTION . THIS OBLIGATION IS IMPOSED BY ITALIAN LEGISLATION ON ' ANY PERSON WHO PROVIDES BOARD AND LODGING , ON WHATEVER BASIS , TO A FOREIGN NATIONAL OR A STATELESS PERSON , . . . OR FOR ANY REASON WHATEVER TAKES SUCH PERSON INTO HIS EMPLOYMENT ' , AND FAILURE TO DISCHARGE IT RENDERS THE PERSON CONCERNED LIABLE TO A MAXIMUM FINE OF LIT . 240 000 OR A MAXIMUM OF SIX MONTHS ' DETENTION .
5 THE QUESTIONS REFERRED TO THE COURT ASK ESSENTIALLY WHETHER SUCH RULES ARE CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLES 7 AND 48 TO 66 OF THE TREATY , ON THE GROUND THAT THEY CONSTITUTE DISCRIMINATION BASED ON NATIONALITY AND A RESTRICTION ON FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR PERSONS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY .
6 THEY ALSO ASK WHETHER THE ABOVE MENTIONED COMMUNITY RULES CONSTITUTE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES WHICH CREATE INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER NATIONAL RULES TO THE CONTRARY .
7 1 . IT IS APPROPRIATE TO DEAL WITH THESE QUESTIONS AS A WHOLE .
8 WITHOUT GIVING THE REASON FOR THE TEMPORARY RESIDENCE IN ITALY OF THE DEFENDANT IN THE MAIN ACTION OR DEFINING HER POSITION IN RELATION TO THE PROVISIONS OF COMMUNITY LAW WHICH MIGHT BE APPLICABLE TO HER THE NATIONAL COURT REFERRED TO THE FIRST THREE CHAPTERS OF TITLE III OF PART TWO OF THE TREATY , WHICH CONCERN WORKERS , THE RIGHT OF ESTABLISHMENT AND SERVICES , WITHOUT MAKING ANY DISTINCTION BETWEEN THOSE CHAPTERS .
9 NEVERTHELESS COMPARISON OF THESE DIFFERENT PROVISIONS SHOWS THAT , TO THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEY MAY BE APPLIED IN CASES SUCH AS THE PRESENT , THEY ARE BASED ON THE SAME PRINCIPLES BOTH IN SO FAR AS THEY CONCERN THE ENTRY