CELEX: 62005CC0339
Language: en
Date: 2006-06-06
Title: Opinion of Mr Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer delivered on 6 June 2006. # Zentralbetriebsrat der Landeskrankenhäuser Tirols v Land Tirol. # Reference for a preliminary ruling: Landesgericht Innsbruck - Austria. # Case C-339/05.

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL
      RUIZ-JARABO COLOMER
      delivered on 6 June 2006 1(1)
      
      Case C‑339/05
      Zentralbetriebsrat der Landeskrankenhäuser Tirols
      v
      Land Tirol
      (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Innsbruck als Arbeits- und Sozialgericht (Austria))
      (Agreement with Switzerland on the free movement of persons – Jurisdiction of the Court – Direct effect of the principle of non-discrimination with regard to employment conditions – Whether periods of employment completed in Switzerland before the entry into force of the Agreement may be taken into account
         in Austria)
      I –  Introduction
      1.     The Landesgericht Innsbruck als Arbeits- und Sozialgericht (Regional Court, Innsbruck, sitting as labour and social court)
         has referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC a question on the interpretation of Article 9(1) of
         Annex I to the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation,
         of the other, on the free movement of persons, concluded in Luxembourg on 21 June 1999 (‘the Agreement’). (2)
      
      2.     In the question submitted, the referring court asks whether periods of employment completed in Switzerland before the entry
         into force of the Agreement may be taken into account as previous periods of employment currently pursued in Austria.
      
      3.     The question requires a consideration of the powers of the Court in relation to the Agreement, an analysis of the direct effect
         of a number of the provisions of the Agreement, and a delimitation of its temporal scope.
      
      II –  The legal framework
      A –    The agreements between the Community and Switzerland
      4.     Despite the close historical, cultural and economic ties between the European Community and Switzerland, it was only following
         the agreement on free trade of 1972 (3) that a tentative relationship began, which was partially strengthened by the agreements on scientific cooperation (4) and trans-Alpine transport. (5)
      
      5.     As a result of political, financial and social demands, on 21 June 1999, agreements were concluded in seven fields: (6) scientific and technological cooperation, air transport, the carriage of goods and passengers by road and rail, trade in
         agricultural products, mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment, public procurement, and the free movement
         of persons.
      
      6.     The agreements fall into three categories: integration (air transport), cooperation (scientific and technological cooperation),
         and liberalisation (the remainder). In the latter case, the agreements are founded on the principle of the equivalence of
         the legal systems of the signatories. (7)
      
      7.     The agreements entered into force on 1 June 2002. (8)
      
      B –    The Agreement on the free movement of persons
      8.     The Agreement on the free movement of persons is distinguished by the fact that, unlike the other agreements, the restricted
         powers of the Community in the field concerned meant that each Member State was required to be a party (9) and therefore the Agreement must be classified as a mixed agreement. (10)
      
      9.     Pursuant to Article 1(d), the Agreement aims ‘to accord the same living, employment and working conditions’ to Community nationals
         and Swiss nationals.
      
      10.   Article 2 attaches overriding importance to the principle of equality by providing that ‘[n]ationals of one Contracting Party
         who are lawfully resident in the territory of another Contracting Party shall not, in application of and in accordance with
         the provisions of Annexes I, II and III to this Agreement, be the subject of any discrimination on grounds of nationality’. (11)
      
      11.   With that aim in mind, Article 7 stipulates that ‘[t]he Contracting Parties shall make provision, in accordance with Annex
         I, for the following rights in relation to the free movement of persons:
      
      (a)      the right to equal treatment with nationals in respect of access to, and the pursuit of, an economic activity, and living,
         employment and working conditions;
      
      …’
      12.   Article 16 refers explicitly to Community law, providing that:
      ‘1.      In order to attain the objectives pursued by this Agreement, the Contracting Parties shall take all measures necessary to
         ensure that rights and obligations equivalent to those contained in the legal acts of the European Community to which reference
         is made are applied in relations between them.
      
      2.      Insofar as the application of this Agreement involves concepts of Community law, account shall be taken of the relevant case-law
         of the Court of Justice of the European Communities prior to the date of its signature. Case-law after that date shall be
         brought to Switzerland’s attention. To ensure that the Agreement works properly, the Joint Committee (12) shall, at the request of either Contracting Party, determine the implications of such case-law.’
      
      13.   That article must be read in conjunction with the joint declaration on the application of the Agreement, contained in the
         final act, which provides that the Contracting Parties must ensure that Swiss nationals may rely on the acquis communautaire in accordance with the terms of the Agreement.
      
      14.   There are also three annexes (13) which concern the free movement of persons (Annex I), the coordination of social security systems (Annex II), and the mutual
         recognition of professional qualifications (Annex III).
      
      15.   More specifically, Annex I contains general provisions (Articles 1 to 5) and specific provisions for employed persons (Articles
         6 to 11), self-employed persons (Articles 12 to 17), the provision of services (Articles 17 to 23), persons not pursuing an
         economic activity (Article 24), and the purchase of immovable property (Article 25). Annex I also includes transitional provisions
         and provisions for the development of the agreement (Articles 26 to 34).
      
      16.   Article 9 of Annex I lays down rules for the equal treatment of employed persons:
      ‘1.      An employed person who is a national of a Contracting Party may not, by reason of his nationality, be treated differently
         in the territory of the other Contracting Party from national employed persons as regards conditions of employment and working
         conditions, especially as regards pay, dismissal, or reinstatement or re-employment if he becomes unemployed.
      
      …
      4.      Any clause in a collective or individual agreement or in any other collective arrangements concerning access to employment,
         employment, pay and other terms of employment and dismissal, shall be automatically void insofar as it provides for or authorises
         discriminatory conditions with respect to foreign employed persons who are nationals of the Contracting Parties.
      
      …’
      C –    Austrian law
      17.   The Republic of Austria and the Land Tirol (Province of Tyrol) implemented the Agreement with Switzerland by means of the
         Vertragsbedienstetengesetz (Law on contractual public servants; ‘VBG’), (14) the Gehaltsgesetz (Law on salaries; ‘GHG’) (15) and the Tiroler Landes- Vertragsbedienstetengesetz (Law of the Land Tirol on contractual public servants; ‘L-VGB’). (16)
      
      18.   Under Paragraph 26(2)( f), point 3, of the VBG, for the purposes of setting the date of advancement, periods of service or
         periods in the teaching profession must be taken into account in full in Austria where such periods were completed ‘… after
         1 June 2002 in a comparable Swiss institution’.
      
      19.   The same rule is laid down in Paragraph 12(2)(f), point 3, of the GHG and in Paragraph 41(8)(3) of the L-VGB.
      III –  The facts, the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling
      20.   A number of employees of the Land Tirol were previously employed in Swiss health institutions, but periods of service prior
         to 1 June 2002 were not taken into account for the purposes of determining their dates of advancement in their current posts,
         a fact which was reflected in their salaries. Ms Waltraud Kostner was employed for over 22 years as a theatre nurse in the
         St. Gallen cantonal hospital; Ms Christine Bieri-Spori for 9½ years as a nurse in Swiss public hospitals; and Ms Andrea Lawatsch
         for almost 2 years as a specialist care nurse at the Oberengadin Hospital in Samedan.
      
      21.   On 28 February 2005, the Zentralbetriebsrat der Landeskrankenhäuser Tirols (central works council for the hospitals of the
         Land Tirol) brought an action before the Landesgericht Innsbruck als Arbeits- und Sozialgericht seeking full recognition of
         all periods of service in Switzerland, citing the cases of the three women.
      
      22.   The Austrian court stayed the proceedings and, before delivering judgment, referred the following question to the Court of
         Justice for a preliminary ruling:
      
      ‘Must a Member State or one of a Member State’s regional or local authorities take account, when calculating the remuneration
         of contractual public servants, of periods of employment in certain institutions in Switzerland, which are comparable to institutions
         listed in Paragraph 41(2) of the Tiroler Landesvertragsbedienstetengesetz (or in Paragraph 26(2) of the Vertragsbedienstetengesetz
         1948), without temporal limitation, or is the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part,
         and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free movement of persons, in particular Article 9(1) of Annex I thereto,
         rather to be interpreted as meaning that it is permissible to take account only of periods of employment by contractual public
         servants in Switzerland after the entry into force of that agreement on 1 June 2002?’
      
      IV –  The procedure before the Court of Justice
      23.   Written observations were submitted, within the period laid down in Article 23 of the Statute of the Court of Justice, by
         the Zentralbetriebsrat der Landeskrankenhäuser Tirols, the Italian Government and the Commission.
      
      24.   On conclusion of the written stage, none of the parties requested a hearing; accordingly, after the general meeting of 25
         April 2006, the case became ready for the preparation of this Opinion.
      
      V –  Analysis of the question referred
      25.   It is common ground in these proceedings that periods of employment completed by a Community national in Switzerland after
         the entry into force of the Agreement with that country count as previous periods of service in employment subsequently completed
         by that Community national in a Member State.
      
      26.   The Landesgericht Innsbruck als Arbeits- und Sozialgericht asks whether, under Article 9 of Annex I to the Agreement, the
         same approach must be applied to periods of employment completed before the entry into force of the Agreement.
      
      27.   In that connection, although the order for reference refers only to the temporal scope of the provision, it is first of all
         necessary to determine whether the Court has jurisdiction to interpret the provision and, in the event that it does, to consider
         whether the provision has direct effect.
      
      A –    Does the Court have jurisdiction to reply to the question referred for a preliminary ruling?
      28.   A preliminary, but nevertheless important, consideration arises from the fact that, as I pointed out above, both the Community
         (17) and the individual Member States concluded the Agreement on the free movement of persons with Switzerland because the agreement
         covers certain fields which do not fall within the powers of the Community.
      
      29.   In Demirel, (18) the Court held that it had jurisdiction to interpret the provisions of mixed agreements relating to powers under primary
         law since such powers form an integral part of the Community legal system. (19) In the absence of a specific statement, that jurisdiction is based on Article 220 EC, (20) which provides that the Court is charged with ensuring that Community law is observed.
      
      30.   Article 9 of Annex I to the Agreement provides for equal treatment of employed persons, thereby laying down a commitment in
         a Community field, from which it follows that, because the provision relates to the free movement of workers, the Court has
         jurisdiction to carry out an interpretation. (21)
      
      31.   Furthermore, the establishment of a special institutional framework – the Joint Committee – does not preclude the intervention
         of the Court since, in accordance with the Kupferberg case-law, (22) the duties of that committee, which are to take responsibility for ‘the management and proper application of the Agreement’
         (23) and to hear disputes concerning the application of the Agreement, (24) are not adversely affected when a court of one of the contracting parties relies, in proceedings, on an unconditional and
         precise provision or refers a question for a preliminary ruling. (25)
      
      B –    Does Article 9 of Annex I to the Agreement have direct effect?
      32.   Having established that the Court is required to reply to the Austrian court, it is necessary to ascertain whether the principle
         of non-discrimination in employment, as laid down in Article 9 of Annex I to the Agreement, may be invoked before the courts
         of the Member States. (26)
      
      33.   In Demirel, which reflects settled case-law, the Court held that ‘an agreement concluded by the Community with non-member countries
         must be regarded as being directly applicable when, having regard to its wording and to the purpose and nature of the agreement
         itself, the provision contains a clear and precise obligation which is not subject, in its implementation or effects, to the
         adoption of any subsequent measure’. (27)
      
      34.   That rule applies the criteria which govern internal Community acts to international agreements, (28) albeit with the inclusion of an additional requirement since, pursuant to Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law
         of Treaties of 23 May 1969, (29) account must also be taken of the wording, purpose and nature of the treaty, which implies an acceptance of the singularity
         of those cases. (30)
      
      35.   A study of the Agreement with Switzerland reveals that it aims to prohibit discrimination on grounds of nationality between
         Community nationals and Swiss nationals, in particular with regard to living, employment and working conditions (Articles
         1(d) and 2), by calling on the signatories to make provision for the right to equal treatment in those fields in relation
         to the free movement of persons (Article 7(a)).
      
      36.   Article 9 of Annex I lays down the principle in respect of employed persons, by prohibiting different treatment on grounds
         of nationality with regard to ‘conditions of employment and working conditions, especially as regards pay, dismissal, or reinstatement
         or re-employment’ (paragraph 1), and providing that any legislation which provides for or authorises clauses which are contrary
         to that rule are void (paragraph [2]).
      
      37.   Thus, Article 9 creates a precise obligation which does not require any further measures, since the parties have no degree
         of latitude with regard to transposition in the fields referred to and must prohibit all discrimination on grounds of nationality,
         a requirement which may not be subject to any conditions or limitations.
      
      38.   It is clear from the foregoing that Article 9 of Annex I to the Agreement prohibits all discrimination and confers on Community
         and Swiss nationals certain rights which the courts of the Member States are automatically required to protect.
      
      39.   It is also important to recall that the Court has frequently upheld the direct effect of provisions of agreements with non-member
         countries which prohibit discrimination in employment in terms similar to those used in the Agreement with Switzerland. Thus,
         with regard to mixed agreements, (31) in Pokrzeptowicz-Meyer, (32) the Court acknowledged the direct effect of Article 37(1), first indent, of the association agreement with Poland, (33) which provides that ‘the treatment accorded to workers of Polish nationality legally employed in the territory of a Member
         State shall be free from any discrimination based on nationality, as regards working conditions, remuneration or dismissal,
         as compared to its own nationals’ (paragraphs 19 to 30). In Simutenkov, (34) the Court upheld the direct effect of Article 23(1) of the mixed Partnership Agreement with Russia, (35) which is similar to Article 37(1), first indent, of the association agreement with Poland (paragraphs 20 to 29).
      
      40.   Moreover, the Agreement with Switzerland has the same objective as Article 39 EC, which lays down the principle of the free
         movement of workers within the Community through the abolition of ‘any discrimination based on nationality between workers
         of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment’. The wording of Article
         9(1) and (4) of Annex I to the Agreement accords substantially with that of Article 7(1) and (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68
         of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community. (36)
      
      41.   That similarity is explained, first, in the short preamble to the Agreement, where the parties state their resolve to bring
         about the free movement of persons between them ‘on the basis of the rules applying in the European Community’, and, second,
         in Article 16 of the Agreement which contains two references to Community law with a view to ensuring that the legal acts
         and case-law of the Community serve as a guide in the attainment of the objectives pursued.
      
      42.   In those circumstances, it is necessary to establish whether the case-law of the Court concerning the direct effect of Article
         39 EC (37) and the direct effect of regulations may be applied to Article 9(1) and (4) of Annex I to the Agreement. (38)
      
      43.   In Metalsa, (39) the Court held that the extension of the interpretation of a provision in the Treaty to a similarly worded provision of an
         agreement concluded by the Community with a non-member country depends on the aim pursued by each provision in its particular
         context and that ‘a comparison between the objectives and context of the agreement and those of the Treaty is of considerable
         importance’.
      
      44.   As I have noted, the relevant provisions of the Agreement with Switzerland and of the EC Treaty share the same aim, namely,
         the abolition of discrimination in employment on grounds of nationality for the purposes of securing freedom of movement for
         workers in the States involved.
      
      45.   Accordingly, to my mind, there is no reason why the case-law of the Court on the direct effect of Article 39 EC and Article
         7(1) and (4) of Regulation No 1612/68 may not be applied to Article 9 of Annex I to the Agreement with Switzerland. (40)
      
      C –    The temporal scope of the principle of equal treatment
      1.      Introduction
      46.   ‘Everyone feels that we occupy a space whose dimensions in time are constantly increasing and this universality brought me
         great joy because I needed to clarify that truth which everyone suspects’. (41)
      
      47.   The Agreement on the free movement of persons and Annex I thereto contain transitional provisions but none of those provisions
         refer to the principle of equal working conditions.
      
      48.   Thus, Article 10 of the Agreement provides that: (a) for five years after the entry into force of the Agreement, Switzerland
         may limit access to an economic activity in cases of residence for a period of more than four months (paragraph 1); (b) for
         a maximum period of two years, the Contracting Parties may maintain the controls on the priority of workers lawfully integrated
         into the labour market (paragraph 2); (c) likewise, for five years following the entry into force of the Agreement, Switzerland
         shall reserve, within its overall quotas, specified minimum quantities of new residence permits for Community workers (paragraph
         3) from certain categories (paragraph 4); (d) such provisions do not apply to employed persons who, at the time of the Agreement’s
         entry into force, are authorised to pursue an economic activity in the territory of the Contracting Parties or to holders
         of valid residence permits, since such persons enjoy certain rights from the outset (paragraph 5); and (e) no quantitative
         limits may be applied to frontier workers (paragraph 7). (42)
      
      49.   The transitional provisions of Annex I refer to: (a) restrictions on access to employment in the public service (Article 26);
         (b) the residence, right to return, and geographical and occupational mobility of employed persons (Articles 27, 29 and 30)
         and of self-employed persons (Articles 31, 33 and 34); and (c) employed (Article 28) and self-employed frontier workers (Article
         32).
      
      50.   Thus, the provisions concerned do not contain any specific statements to guide the reply to the question referred by the Landesgericht
         Innsbruck als Arbeits- und Sozialgericht.
      
      2.      The solution proposed
      51.   For the purposes of replying to the question submitted, it is necessary to assess both the direct effect of Article 9 of Annex
         I to the Agreement and two basic principles, namely the principle that an agreement only creates obligations between the parties
         with effect from its entry into force (tempus regit actum), (43) at which point it forms an integral part of Community law, (44) and the principle that, although the will of the parties constitutes an interpretative guide (the subjective construction), (45) an overall approach, (46) which takes account of the purpose and scheme, is essential.
      
      52.   In the light of those criteria, the question referred must be answered in the affirmative by declaring that periods of employment
         completed in Switzerland before the entry into force of the Agreement must be taken into account in Austria for the purposes
         of advancement in comparable employment which is subsequently pursued in the latter State. That solution is founded on a number
         of arguments.
      
      53.   First, it is settled case-law that refusal to take into consideration previous periods of employment completed in the public
         service of another Member State constitutes unjustified indirect discrimination. (47)
      
      54.   Second, with regard to the issue of the effect of the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality today, in
         other words, the application of a new rule in a current employment relationship, leaving aside the question of hypothetical
         respect for rights presumed to have been acquired in the past, from the time when the Agreement entered into force, the principle
         of equal treatment with regard to employment conditions has been fully applicable to ongoing legal situations.
      
      55.   Third, in order to make it easier for nationals of the Member States and Switzerland to gain access to and pursue activities
         and to provide services, Article 9 of the Agreement governs the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other qualifications
         by reference to Annex III, but does not make acceptance conditional on the qualification having been awarded after the entry
         into force of the Agreement. That approach is also essential with regard to periods already completed. (48)
      
      56.   Fourth, if the proposed method of calculation were not accepted in the case before the Court, it would lead to individuals
         who have worked in Switzerland and who, after June 2002, look for a post within the territory of the Community being placed,
         without justification, in a less favourable situation vis-à-vis individuals who have been working in the Member States. Length
         of service in previous comparable employment would only benefit the latter, thereby discouraging the former from exercising
         the right to freedom of movement.
      
      57.   There is a further argument which bolsters the preceding ones and requires a more detailed analysis, namely that the Agreement
         with Switzerland entails the incorporation of the acquis communautaire, (49) which is also the case when a State enters the Community.
      
      58.   That similarity enables the application by analogy of the case-law on the temporal scope of Community provisions in new Member
         States, which confirms my view.
      
      59.   In Saldanha and MTS, (50) the Court examined whether the first paragraph of Article 6 of the EC Treaty precludes a Member State from requiring provision
         of security for costs by a person who is not resident and has no assets in Austria and has brought an action against a company
         established in that Member State, even though such a requirement is not imposed on its own nationals in the same situation
         and where the plaintiff is a national of another Member State and of a non-member country. However, since the facts occurred
         before the accession of Austria to the Community, the Court analysed the temporal scope of the provision and, in view of the
         fact that the Act of Accession contained no specific conditions in that regard, the Court held that it was ‘immediately applicable’
         and binding on the Republic of Austria from the date of its accession, including ‘the future effects of situations arising
         prior to’ its accession (paragraph 14).
      
      60.   Furthermore, in Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund, (51) a case with factual and legal similarities to those of the main proceedings, the Court examined the situation where, in Austria,
         for the purposes of calculating teachers’ remuneration, periods worked in other Member States were taken into account in full
         only when the public interest so required and with the approval of the competent authorities, whereas periods of employment
         completed in Austria were not subject to those formalities, and held that it was contrary to Community law (paragraph 51).
         Furthermore, when considering whether such periods included periods prior to the accession of Austria to the European Union,
         the Court held that ‘periods of employment in certain institutions in other Member States comparable to the Austrian institutions
         listed in Paragraph 26(2) of the VBG … must be taken into account without any temporal limitation’ (paragraph 56).
      
      VI –  Conclusion
      61.   In the light of the foregoing considerations, I propose that the Court reply to the question referred for a preliminary ruling
         by the Landesgericht Innsbruck als Arbeits- und Sozialgericht by declaring that:
      
      In accordance with Article 9 of Annex I to the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other,
            on the free movement of persons, periods of service in Switzerland before the entry into force of the Agreement must be taken
            into account for the purposes of advancement in comparable employment subsequently pursued in one of the Member States.
      1 –	Original language: Spanish.
      
      2 –	OJ 2002 L 114, p. 6.
      
      3 –	Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Swiss Confederation, done at Brussels on 22 July 1972 (OJ, English special edition 1972(I), p. 191). Similar agreements were concluded with Austria,
         Finland, Iceland, Norway, Portugal and Sweden.
      
      4 –	Framework Agreement for scientific and technical cooperation between the European Communities and the Swiss Confederation (OJ 1985 L 313, p. 6).
      
      5 –	Agreement between the European Economic Community and the Swiss Confederation on the carriage of goods by road and rail, done at Oporto on 2 May 1992 (OJ 1992 L 373, p. 28).
      
      6 –	Lautenberg, A.L., ‘Les accords bilatéraux vus de Bruxelles’, Accords bilatéraux Suisse – UE (Commentaires), Helbing & Lichtenhahn, Basel, Geneva, Munich/Bruylant, Brussels, 2001, pp. 21 to 24, explains the Swiss position during the
         negotiations.
      
      7 –	Kaddous, C., ‘Les accords sectoriels dans le système des relations extérieures de l’Union européenne’, Accords bilatéraux…, op. cit., p. 79.
      
      8 –	‘…the first day of the second month following the last notification of deposit of the instruments of ratification or approval
         of all seven of the … agreements …’ (Article 25 of the Agreement on the free movement of persons). Kaufmann, B., ‘Die bilateralen
         Abkommen mit der EU. Ein langer Weg in der EU bis zur Ratifikation’, Neue Zürcher Zeitung (NZZ), 21 June 2000, describes the complexity of the signing process which delayed the entry into force of the agreements.
      
      9 –	Bieber, R., ‘Quelques remarques à l’occasion de l’entrée en vigueur des Accords bilatéraux Suisse-CE’, Mélanges en l’honneur de Bernard Dutoit, Librairie Droz, Geneva, 2002, p. 14 et seq.
      
      10 –	Neuwahl, N.A., ‘Joint Participation in International Treaties and the Exercise of Power by the EEC and Its Member States:
         Mixed Agreements’, Common Market Law Review, vol. 28, 1991, pp. 717 to 740.
      
      11 –	The principle is also laid down in the agreements on carriage by road and rail (Articles 1 and 32), air transport (Article
         3), public procurement (Article 6 and annexes) and trade in agricultural products (Articles 7 to 9).
      
      12 –      The Joint Committee, established by Article 14 of the Agreement, is responsible for the management and proper application
         of the agreement.  Under Article 19, the committee is charged with settling disputes between the Contracting Parties.
      
      13 –	Article 15 provides that the annexes and protocols to the Agreement form an integral part thereof.
      
      14 –	BGBl. 1948, no 86; amended on a number of occasions.
      
      15 –	BGBl. 1956, no 54; also amended since its entry into force. 
      
      16 –	LGBl. no 2/2001; likewise amended a number of times.
      
      17 –	The legal basis for agreements between the Community and other international organisations is supplied by Article 310 EC,
         formerly Article 238 of the EC Treaty, which was founded on Article 14 of the Convention on the transitional provisions of
         the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community.
      
      18 –	Case 12/86 [1987] ECR 3719, paragraphs 6 to 12.
      
      19 –	Macleod, I., Hendry, I.D., Hyett, S., The External Relations of the European Communities, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1996, p. 156; Louis, J.V., El ordenamiento jurídico comunitario, 5th ed., Oficina de Publicaciones de las Comunidades Europeas, 1995, p. 127. In points 20 to 21 of his Opinion in Case C‑53/96
         Hermès [1998] ECR I‑3603, Advocate General Tesauro discusses that issue but does not go as far as stating that the power of judicial
         review extends to provisions governing non-Community fields.
      
      20 –	Petrović, D., L’effet direct des accords internationaux de la Communauté européenne: à la recherche d’un concept, Presses Universitaires de France, Paris, 2000, p. 155 et seq. 
      
      21 –	Khil-Wolff, B., ‘L’Accord Suisse-CE sur la libre circulation des personnes: observations générales’, L’Accord sur la libre circulation des personnes avec l’UE et ses effets à l’égard de la sécurité sociale en Suisse, Stämpfli Verlag AG, Berne, 2001, p. 5.
      
      22 –	Case 104/81 [1982] ECR 3641, paragraphs 19 and 20.
      
      23 –	Article 14 of the Agreement.
      
      24 –	Article 19 of the Agreement.
      
      25 –	Gaja, G., ‘Effets directs et réciprocité dans la jurisprudence concernant l’Accord entre la Communauté européenne et la
         Suisse’, Annuaire suisse de droit international, vol. XL, 1984, p. 27, argues that it would be difficult for the Joint Committee established by the 1972 agreement to rule
         on whether a particular provision had direct effect because its work is focused on other aspects such as clarifying the obligations
         which are derived from that agreement. A different situation, which was examined in Opinions 1/91 [1991] ECR I‑6079 and 1/92
         [1992] ECR I-2821, arises when an international treaty establishes a separate system of courts.
      
      26 –	Carreau, D., Droit international, Pedone, Paris, 1988, p. 453, maintains that, where agreements do not acknowledge direct effect, it is for the courts to make
         a determination in that regard in each case.
      
      27 –	Paragraph 14 of Demirel. See also the following cases: 87/75 Bresciani [1976] ECR 129, paragraph 16; C‑18/90 Kziber [1991] ECR I-199, paragraph 15; C‑312/91 Metalsa [1993] ECR I-3751, paragraph 12; C‑432/92 Anastasiou and Others [1994] ECR I-3087, paragraph 23; C‑162/96 Racke [1998] ECR I‑3655, paragraph 31; C‑416/96 El‑Yassini [1999] ECR I-1209, paragraph 25; C‑262/96 Sürül [1999] ECR I-2685, paragraph 60; and C‑162/00 Pokrzeptowicz-Meyer [2002] ECR I-1049, paragraph 19. In Joined Cases 21/72 to 24/72 International Fruit Company and Others [1972] ECR 1219, the Court considered for the first time whether to extend the doctrine of direct effect to an agreement
         concluded by the Community and, although it did not accord that status to GATT, it did not rule it out for other agreements.
         
      
      28 –	In connection with the direct effect of international agreements, the Permanent Court of International Justice, the precursor
         of the International Court of Justice, held that the special legal status accorded to the Free City of Danzig did not enable
         it to become a member of the International Labour Organisation, on the grounds that an international agreement – in that case,
         the Beamtenabkommen – does not create direct rights or obligations for individuals (opinion of 26 August 1930, Publications
         of the PCIJ, series B, no 18, 1928).
      
      29 –	United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 1155, no 18232, p. 331.
      
      30 –	Petrović, D., op. cit., classifies as sui generis the provisions of the international agreements which form an integral part of Community law.
      
      31 –	The Court has also accepted the direct effect of other types of agreement, such as the Association Agreement with Turkey
         (concluded on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963, OJ 1973 C 113, p. 1), and extended
         that effect to certain provisions of Decision No 1/80 of the Council of Association of 19 September 1980 in the judgments
         in Case C‑192/89 Sevince [1990] ECR I‑3461, paragraph 26 (Articles 6 and 13); Case C‑355/93 Eroglu [1994] I‑5113, paragraph 17 (Article 7(2)); Case C‑351/95 Kadiman [1997] ECR I‑2133, paragraph 28 (Article 7(1)); Case C‑210/97 Akman [1998] ECR I-7519, paragraph 23 (Article 7(2)); Case C‑171/01 Wählergruppe Gemeinsam [2003] ECR I-4301, paragraph 67 (Article 10(1)); Case C‑467/02 Cetinkaya [2004] ECR I-10895, paragraph 31 (Article 7(1)); Case C‑136/03 Dörr and Ünal [2005] ECR I-4759, paragraph 66 (Article 6(1)); and Case C‑502/04 Torun [2006] ECR I‑1563, paragraph 19 (Article 7(2)). Similarly, at paragraph 32 of the judgment in El-Yassini, the Court recognised the direct effect of Article 40 of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Economic Community
         and the Kingdom of Morocco, signed in Rabat on 27 April 1976 and concluded on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation
         (EEC) No 2211/78 of 26 September 1978 (OJ 1978 L 264, p. 1), which provides that ‘the treatment accorded by each Member State
         to workers of Moroccan nationality employed in its territory shall be free from any discrimination based on nationality, as
         regards working conditions or remuneration, in relation to its own nationals’.
      
      32 –	In footnote 27.
      
      33 –	Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part,
         and the Republic of Poland, of the other part, concluded and approved on behalf of the Community by Decision 93/743/Euratom,
         ECSC, EC of the Council and the Commission of 13 December 1993 (OJ 1993 L 348, p. 1).
      
      34 –	Case C‑265/03 [2005] ECR I-2579.
      
      35 –	Agreement on partnership and cooperation establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States,
         of one part, and the Russian Federation, of the other part, signed in Corfu on 24 June 1994 and approved on behalf of the
         Communities by Decision 97/800/ECSC, EC, Euratom: Council and Commission Decision of 30 October 1997 (OJ 1997 L 327, p. 1).
      
      36 –	OJ English special edition1968(II),p. 475.
      
      37 –	Case 41/74 Van Duyn [1974] ECR 1337, paragraphs 4 to 8; Case 13/76 Donà [1976] ECR I‑1333, paragraph 20; and Case C‑18/95 Terhoeve [1999] ECR I-345, paragraph 27.
      
      38 –	Case 93/71 Leonesio [1972] ECR 287, paragraph 5, and Case 34/73 Variola [1973] ECR 981, paragraphs 8 and 10.
      
      39 –	Case C‑312/91 [1993] ECR I-3751, paragraph 11. See also Case C‑63/99 Gloszczuk [2001] ECR I-6369, paragraph 49; Case C‑235/99 Kondova [2001] ECR I-6427, paragraph 52; Case C‑257/99 Barkoci and Malik [2001] ECR I-6557; and Pokrzeptowicz-Meyer, paragraph 33.
      
      40 –	Kaddous, C., op. cit., pp. 105 to 110.
      
      41 –	Proust, M., À la recherche du temps perdu. Le Temps retrouvé, Ed. Gallimard, Bibliothèque La Pléiade, IV, Paris, 1989, p. 623.
      
      42 –	Under Article 10(6) of the Agreement, Switzerland is required to forward to the Joint Committee any useful statistics and
         information, and the Contracting Parties may request a review of the situation within the Joint Committee. Article 10(8) refers
         to the transitional provisions on social security and the retrocession of unemployment insurance contributions laid down in
         the Protocol to Annex II.
      
      43 –	Cahier, P., ‘L’obligation de ne pas priver un traité de son objet et de son but avant son entrée en vigueur’, Mélanges Fernand Dehousse, vol. 1, Fernand Nathan, Paris Babour, Brussels, 1979, p. 31.
      
      44 –	Case 181/73 Haegeman [1974] ECR 449, paragraph 5; Sevince, paragraph 8; and Demirel, paragraph 7.
      
      45 –	Imbrechts, L., ‘Les effets internes des accords internationaux des Communautés européennes’, Revue d’intégration européenne/Journal of European Integration, 1986, vol. 10, no 1, p. 66; Tagaras, H.N., ‘L’effet direct des accords internationaux de la Communauté’, Cahiers de Droit Européenne, 1987, p. 23.
      
      46 –	Lagrange, M., ‘La Cour de Justice des Communautés européennes du Plan Schumann à l’Union européenne’, Mélanges Fernand …, op. cit., vol. 2, p. 131 et seq.
      
      47 –	Judgments in Case C‑419/92 Scholz [1994] ECR I-505, paragraph 11; Case C‑15/96 Schöning-Kougebetopoulou [1998] ECR I-47, paragraph 13; Case C‑187/96 Commission v Greece [1998] ECR I-1095, paragraph 21; Case C‑224/01 Köbler [2003] ECR I-10239, paragraphs 71 to 74; Case C‑278/03 Commission v Italy [2005] ECR I‑3747, paragraph 14; and judgment of 23 February 2006 in Case C‑205/04 Commission v Spain, paragraphs 14 and 15, not published in the ECR.
      
      48 –	Advocate General Jacobs puts forward a similar parallel in relation to the Act of Accession of the Republic of Austria
         to the European Union at point 146 of the Opinion in Case C‑195/98 Österreichischer Gewerkschaftsbund [2000] ECR I‑10497.
      
      49 –	That may be inferred from one of the joint declarations annexed to the final act of the Agreement and referred to in point
         13 of this Opinion. Khil-Wolff, B., op. cit., pp. 4 and 7, and Bieber, R., op. cit., p. 17, believe that the principal method
         of approximating the laws of the European Community and Switzerland consists of the incorporation of the acquis communautaire by the latter State, so that Community law does not form an integral part of just one of the parties to what is a traditional
         bilateral agreement.
      
      50 –	Case C‑122/96 [1997] ECR I-5325.
      
      51 –	Cited in footnote 48.