CELEX: C2002/084/63
Language: en
Date: 2002-04-06 00:00:00
Title: Case C-445/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice Unico del Tribunale di Beilla by order of 18 October 2001 in case of Roberto Simoncello and Piera Boerio v Direzione Provinciale del Lavoro, Vercelli (Principal Labour Administration, Vercelli)

6.4.2002               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 84/37
the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court),            Giudice Unico del Tribunale di Beilla (Single-Judge Court of
which was received at the Court Registry on 19 November                 Beilla), which was received at the Court Registry on 19 Novem-
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Stadt Villingen-          ber 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Roberto
Schwenningen v Ophilia Akosua Owusu on the following                    Simoncello and Piera Boerio v Direzione Provinciale del lavoro
questions:                                                              (Vercelli) on the following question:
1.   With regard to the legal position on 16 May 1997, was
     prostitution engaged in on a self-employed basis by a              Are Article 9 bis (2) of Law No 608 of 28 November 1996, in
     national of Member State A in Member State B covered               so far as it provides that an employer is required to notify the
     by freedom of establishment (Article 52 of the EC Treaty)          Sezione Circoscrizionale per l’Impiego of the hiring of every
     and/or freedom to provide services (Article 59 of the              worker, and Article 10 of Legislative Decree No 469 of
     EC Treaty)? Is it in this regard relevant whether prosti-          23 December 1997, in so far as it refers to Article 9 bis of Law
     tution was at that time considered in Member State B to            608/1996 in cases where non-authorised parties have acted as
     be immoral and anti-social?                                        intermediaries, consistent with the principles of Community
                                                                        law laid down by Articles 48, 52 and 90 of the EC Treaty
2.   If the first question is answered in the negative:                 (now, after amendment, Articles 39, 43, and 86 EC).
     With regard to the legal position on 16 May 1997, did
     the national of Member State A derive a right to reside in
     Member State B directly from Article 8a of the EC Treaty?
3.   If the second question is answered in the negative:
     As the law stood on 16 May 1997, did that person have
     a right of residence under the conditions set out in               Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht
     Article 1 of Council Directive 90/364/EEC (1) of 28 June           für Zivilrechtssachen, Vienna, by order of that court of
     1990 on the right of residence, even though Member                 5 November 2001 in the case of DLD Trading Company
     State B had not yet at that date implemented that directive               Import-Export, spol.s.r.o. v Republic of Austria
     in its domestic law?
4.   If the third question is answered in the affirmative:                                       (Case C-447/01)
     Was that person required at the time of her entry to have
     sufficient resources and to demonstrate this to the                                          (2002/C 84/64)
     competent authority, or does it suffice if, during her
     period of residence in Member State B, she did not claim
     any social assistance?
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by an order of the Landesgericht für
(1) OJ L 180, p. 26.
                                                                        Zivilrechtssachen (Regional Court for Civil Matters), Vienna,
                                                                        of 5 November 2001, which was received at the Court Registry
                                                                        on 20 November 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                        OLD Trading Company Import-Export, spol.s.r.o. v Republic
                                                                        of Austria on the following questions:
                                                                        1.    Was a provision of directly applicable Community law or
                                                                              a directive infringed and, if so, which one, as a result of
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice Unico                       the government action described in the facts, in particular
del Tribunale di Beilla by order of 18 October 2001 in                        the alteration as from 1 January 1998 of the travellers’
case of Roberto Simoncello and Piera Boerio v Direzione                       duty-free amount to EUR 75 or EUR 100, according to
Provinciale del Lavoro, Vercelli (Principal Labour Admin-                     the case under Paragraph 97a of the customs
                        istration, Vercelli)                                  implementing law [ZollR-DG] in conjunction with Para-
                                                                              graph 19a of the corresponding implementing regulation
                                                                              [ZollR-DV] and the quantitative restriction in regard to
                         (Case C-445/01)
                                                                              the relief from turnover tax and excise duty on tobacco
                                                                              products.
                          (2002/C 84/63)
                                                                        2.    If Question 1 is answered affirmatively:
                                                                              Is the infringed provision of directly applicable Com-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        munity law or of that directive one which confers an
European Communities by order of 18 October 2001 of the                       individual right on the plaintiff in the main proceedings?