CELEX: C1999/121/16
Language: en
Date: 1999-05-01 00:00:00
Title: Case C-33/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arrondissementsrechtbank te Amsterdam by judgment of that court of 28 January 1999 in the case of H. Fahmi (Case No AKW 97/5082/24) and M. M. Esmoris Cerdeiro-Pinedo Amado (Case No AKM 97/7018/24) againts Bestuur van de Sociale Verzekeringsbank

1.5.1999                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 121/9
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arrondisse-                               nationals and who are pursuing their studies in the
mentsrechtbank te Amsterdam by judgment of that court                                 Netherlands?
of 28 January 1999 in the case of H. Fahmi (Case No AKW                      2. Must Article 48 or Article 52 of the EEC Treaty
97/5082/24) and M. M. Esmoris Cerdeiro-Pinedo Amado
                                                                                  be interpreted as meaning that the restriction of
(Case No AKW 97/7018/24) against Bestuur van de Sociale
                                                                                  entitlement to receive from the national authorities a
                        Verzekeringsbank
                                                                                  contribution to the cost of maintaining student chil-
                                                                                  dren aged 18 or over results, for nationals of Member
                          (Case C-33/99)                                          States other than the Netherlands who move to the
                                                                                  Netherlands or for the children of such nationals, in
                                                                                  an obstacle to freedom of movement for workers,
                         (1999/C 121/16)                                          alternatively to freedom of establishment, which is
                                                                                  such as to render that restriction incompatible with
                                                                                  those Articles or either of them?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Arrondissements-
                                                                         (1) OJ L 28, 30.1.1997, p. 1 (consolidated version).
rechtbank te Amsterdam (Amsterdam District Court) of 28 Jan-             (2) OJ, English special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475.
uary 1999, receveid at the Court Registry on 8 February 1999,
for a preliminary ruling in the case of H. Fahmi and M. M.
Esmoris Cerdeiro-Pinedo Amado against Bestuur van de Sociale
Verzekeringsbank on the following questions:
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
— In the case of H. Fahmi (Case No AKW 97/5082/24):                      Nederlanden by judgment of 5 January 1999 in the
                                                                                 criminal proceedings against R. Donkersteeg
    1. a) Must Article 41(1) of the Cooperation Agreement
            be interpreted as meaning that a Moroccan worker                                        (Case C-37/99)
            may rely on the prohibition of discrimination laid
            down in that provision if he no longer resides on                                      (1999/C 121/17)
            the territory of a Member State of the European
            Community?                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by judgment of 5 January 1999 by
                                                                         the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the
        b) If so, does Article 41(3) of the Cooperation Agree-           Netherlands), which was received at the Court Registry on
             ment preclude reliance on Article 41(1) thereof by          10 February 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal
             a Moroccan worker whose children reside outside             proceedings against R. Donkersteeg on the following ques-
             the Community?                                              tions:
    2. If a worker such as the first plaintiff may rely on the           1. Is Article 1 of Council Directive 83/189/EEC (1) to be
        prohibition of discrimination laid down in Article                   interpreted as meaning that the provision in Article 2(1) of
        41 (1) of the Cooperation Agreement, does that                       the Verordening Minimumeisen Varkesnhouderij 1993
        prohibition have the effect of rendering the abolition               (1993 Regulation on the minimum requirements for pig
        of the entitlement to receive child allowance imper-                 keeping) referred to under heading 4, which states that:
        missible if the effect of that abolition is such that                The operator is required to ensure that one or more proper
        that right is replaced by an entitlement to receive a                disinfectant containers or appropriate cleaning facilities for
        contribution to (inter alia) the cost of maintaining                 disinfecting footwear are present on his holding, must be
        student children aged 18 or over which far more                      regarded as a technical regulation within the meaning of
        frequently benefits Netherlands nationals or persons                 that Directive?
        insured under the AKW who reside in the Netherlands              2. Is Article 1 of Directive 83/189/EEC to be interpreted as
        than workers such as the first plaintiff?                            meaning that the provision in Article 2(1) of the Verorde-
                                                                             ning Bestrijding Ziekte van Aujeszky 1993 (1993 Regu-
— In the case of M. M. Esmoris Cerdeiro-Pinedo Amado (Case                   lation on the combating of Aujeszky’s disease) referred to
    No AKW 97/7018/24):                                                      under heading 8, which states that: Every operator is
                                                                             required to have pigs present on his holding vaccinated
    1. a) Does Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No                      against Aujeszky’s disease in accordance with the vacci-
            1408/71 (1), or any other provision of that Regu-                nation scheme set up for the animal species concerned
            lation, preclude the abolition of the right to child             and the individual areas by the Afdeling (pig breeding
            allowance for student children over the age of 18 if             department) on the recommendation of the Stichting
            eligibility for the entitlement which replaces that              (veterinary care association), must be regarded as a techni-
            right is in principle enjoyed only by students who               cal regulation within the meaning of that Directive?
            are Netherlands nationals and who are pursuing               3. Where a draft technical regulation within the meaning
            their studies in the Netherlands?                                of Directive 83/189/EEC is not communicated to the
                                                                             Commission pursuant to Articles 8 and 9 of that Directive,
        b) Must Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EEC)                     does that render such a regulation inapplicable to the
             No 1612/68 (2) be interpreted as precluding the                 extent to which it constitutes a barrier to trade or the free
             abolition of the right to child allowance for student           movement of goods in a particular case, or should it be
             children over the age of 18 if eligibility for the              ruled that such a provision cannot be applied where the
             entitlement which replaces that right is in principle           regulation constitutes, or may constitute, a barrier to trade
             enjoyed only by students who are Netherlands                    in general irrespective of the particular case?