CELEX: C2002/109/39
Language: en
Date: 2002-05-04 00:00:00
Title: Case C-35/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that Court of 8 November 2001 in the case of Landeszahnärztekammer Hessen against Dr Markus Vogel

C 109/24                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        4.5.2002
where on the basis of the documents sent to him a sensible              3.    Are carers within the meaning of Paragraph 19 of
consumer could have thought that all he had to do to claim                    Volume XI of the SGB workers within the meaning of
the amount held for him was to return an enclosed payment                     Article 39 EC? If so, does that preclude denying them the
notice, so that the payment of the prize did not depend on an                 right to have ‘pension insurance contributions’ paid on
order for and delivery of goods from the undertaking promis-                  their behalf on the basis that they do not have their
ing the prize, but where a catalogue and a voucher for a trial                residence or habitual place of stay in the relevant country?
offer without obligation are sent to the consumer with the
prize notification?
If the first question is answered in the affirmative, there is no       (1) OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416.
need to answer the other two questions.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Socialgericht
Aachen by order of 18 January 2002 in the case of Maria
Barth against Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz,
additional parties (1) PAX Familienfürsorge Krankenver-                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal-
sicherung and (2) Landesamt für Besoldung und Versor-                   tungsgericht by order of that Court of 8 November 2001
                   gung Nordrhein-Westfalen                             in the case of Landeszahnärztekammer Hessen against
                                                                                                 Dr Markus Vogel
                           (Case C-31/02)
                                                                                                   (Case C-35/02)
                          (2002/C 109/38)
                                                                                                  (2002/C 109/39)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Socialgericht Aachen
(Social Court, Aachen) of 18 January 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 4 February 2002, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Maria Barth against Landesversicherungsanstalt              Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Rheinprovinz, additonal parties (1) PAX Familienfürsorge                European Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsger-
Krankenversicherung and (2) Landesamt für Besoldung und                 icht (Federal Administrative Court) of 8 November 2001,
Versorgung Nordrhein-Westfalen on the following questions:              received at the Court Registry on 12 February 2002, for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling in the case of Landeszahnärztekammer
1.    Are the provisions of Regulation EEC No 1408/71 (1) of            Hessen against Dr Markus Vogel on the following question:
      the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
      security schemes to employed persons and their families
      moving within the Community also applicable to the                Is it compatible with Article 1 of Council Directive
      German care insurance regime if cover for the risk                78/687/EEC (1) of 25 July 1978 concerning the coordination
      of becoming reliant on care under Paragraph 23, in                of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative
      conjunction with Paragraph 110, of Volume XI of the               action in respect of the activities of dental practitioners (OJ
      Sozialgesetzbuch (German Code of Social Law, herein-              1978 L 233, p. 10) for national legislation to permit doctors
      after ‘the SGB’), which relates to Social Care Insurance, is      in general to practise dentistry on a permanent basis without
      based in whole or in part on a private care insurance             having the dental training required by the directive and
      policy?                                                           certified by an appropriate diploma?
2.    Do the contributions payable to the statutory pension
                                                                        Does the answer to this question turn on whether the activity
      insurance scheme by care insurance institutions on behalf
                                                                        is pursued under the title ‘dental practitioner’?
      of carers not acting in the course of employment pursuant
      to Paragraph 44 of Volume XI of the SGB, in conjunction
      with Paragraphs 3(1)(1)(a) and 166(2) of Volume VI of
      the SGB, which relates to Statutory Pension Insurance,
      constitute ‘sickness benefits’ within the meaning of              (1) OJ L 233 of 24.8.1978, p. 10.
      Article 4(1)(a) of Regulation No EEC No 1408/71? If so,
      may such benefits be payable on behalf of carers who
      provide care in the country of the competent institution
      but live in a different Member State?