AND HIS WORKING HOURS AND IT IS THE SCHOOL ' S INSTRUCTIONS THAT HE MUST CARRY OUT AND ITS RULES THAT HE MUST OBSERVE . DURING A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE PREPARATORY SERVICE HE IS REQUIRED TO GIVE LESSONS TO THE SCHOOL ' S PUPILS AND THUS PROVIDES A SERVICE OF SOME ECONOMIC VALUE TO THE SCHOOL . THE AMOUNTS WHICH HE RECEIVES MAY BE REGARDED AS REMUNERATION FOR THE SERVICES PROVIDED AND FOR THE DUTIES INVOLVED IN COMPLETING THE PERIOD OF PREPARATORY SERVICE . CONSEQUENTLY , THE THREE CRITERIA FOR THE EXISTENCE OF AN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP ARE FULFILLED IN THIS CASE .
19 THE FACT THAT TEACHERS ' PREPARATORY SERVICE , LIKE APPRENTICESHIPS IN OTHER OCCUPATIONS , MAY BE REGARDED AS PRACTICAL PREPARATION DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE ACTUAL PURSUIT OF THE OCCUPATION IN POINT IS NOT A BAR TO THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 48 ( 1 ) IF THE SERVICE IS PERFORMED UNDER THE CONDITIONS OF AN ACTIVITY AS AN EMPLOYED PERSON .
20 NOR MAY IT BE OBJECTED THAT SERVICES PERFORMED IN EDUCATION DO NOT FALL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE EEC TREATY BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT OF AN ECONOMIC NATURE . ALL THAT IS REQUIRED FOR THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 48 IS THAT THE ACTIVITY SHOULD BE IN THE NATURE OF WORK PERFORMED FOR REMUNERATION , IRRESPECTIVE OF THE SPHERE IN WHICH IT IS CARRIED OUT ( SEE THE JUDGMENT OF 12 DECEMBER 1974 IN CASE 36/74 WALRAVE V UNION CYCLISTE INTERNATIONALE ( 1974 ) ECR 1405 ). NOR MAY THE ECONOMIC NATURE OF THOSE ACTIVITIES BE DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT THEY ARE PERFORMED BY PERSONS WHOSE STATUS IS GOVERNED BY PUBLIC LAW SINCE , AS THE COURT POINTED OUT IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 12 FEBRUARY 1974 IN CASE 152/73 ( SOTGIU V DEUTSCHE BUNDESPOST ( 1974 ) ECR 153 ), THE NATURE OF THE LEGAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EMPLOYEE AND EMPLOYER , WHETHER INVOLVING PUBLIC LAW STATUS OR A PRIVATE LAW CONTRACT , IS IMMATERIAL AS REGARDS THE APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 48 .
21 THE FACT THAT TRAINEE TEACHERS GIVE LESSONS FOR ONLY A FEW HOURS A WEEK AND ARE PAID REMUNERATION BELOW THE STARTING SALARY OF A QUALIFIED TEACHER DOES NOT PREVENT THEM FROM BEING REGARDED AS WORKERS . IN ITS JUDGMENT IN LEVIN , CITED ABOVE , THE COURT HELD THAT THE EXPRESSIONS ' WORKER ' AND ' ACTIVITY AS AN EMPLOYED PERSON ' MUST BE UNDERSTOOD AS INCLUDING PERSONS WHO , BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT EMPLOYED FULL TIME , RECEIVE PAY LOWER THAN THAT FOR FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT , PROVIDED THAT THE ACTIVITIES PERFORMED ARE EFFECTIVE AND GENUINE . THE LATTER REQUIREMENT IS NOT CALLED INTO QUESTION IN THIS CASE .
22 CONSEQUENTLY , THE REPLY TO THE FIRST PART OF THE QUESTION MUST BE THAT A TRAINEE TEACHER WHO , UNDER THE DIRECTION AND SUPERVISION OF THE SCHOOL AUTHORITIES , IS UNDERGOING A PERIOD OF SERVICE IN PREPARATION FOR THE TEACHING PROFESSION DURING WHICH HE PROVIDES SERVICES BY GIVING LESSONS AND RECEIVES REMUNERATION