CELEX: C2002/084/29
Language: en
Date: 2002-04-06 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 7 February 2002 in Case C-28/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Liselotte Kauer v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Angestellten, (Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Articles 94(1), (2) and (3) — Old-age insurance — Periods of child-rearing completed in another Member State before the entry into force of Regulation No 1408/71)

C 84/18                     EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           6.4.2002
(BGBl. 1996 I, p. 1246), employers of 10 or fewer workers                     Capitale (Judicial Board of the Brussels-Capital region)
from the duty to keep documents containing the results of a                   (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
risk assessment, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to                before that court between François De Coster and Collège des
fulfil its obligations under Articles 5 and 189 of the EC Treaty              bourgmestre et échevins de Watermael-Boitsfort — on the
(now Articles 10 EC and 249 EC) and Articles 9(1)(a) and                      interpretation of Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after
10(3)(a) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on                   amendment, Article 49 EC) and Articles 60 and 66 of the EC
the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in                     Treaty (now Articles 50 and 55 EC) — the Court (Fifth
the safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183                       Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
p. 1). the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: S. von Bahr                    S. von Bahr, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur)
(Rapporteur), President of the Fourth Chamber, acting for the                 and M. Wathelet, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate
President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,                 General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 Nov-
M. Wathelet and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges, Advocate                           ember 2001, in which it has ruled:
General: L.A. Geelhoed, Registrar: R. Grass, has given a
judgment on 7 February 2002, in which it:
                                                                              Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC)
1.     Declares that, by failing to ensure that the obligation to be in       and Articles 60 and 66 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 50 and 55
       possession of an assessment in documentary form of the risks to        EC) must be interpreted as preventing the application of a tax on
       safety and health at work, as laid down by Council Directive           satellite dishes such as that introduced by Articles 1 to 3 of the tax
       89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures             regulation adopted on 24 June 1997 by the municipal council of
       to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers          Watermael-Boitsfort.
       at work, applies to employers of 10 or fewer workers in all
       circumstances, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to
       fulfil its obligations under Articles 9(1)(a) and 10(3)(a) of that     (1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.
       directive;
2.     Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 135 of 13.5.2000.
                                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                                         (Fifth Chamber)
                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                                        7 February 2002
                              (Fifth Chamber)
                          of 29 November 2001                                 in Case C-28/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                              the Oberster Gerichtshof): Liselotte Kauer v Pensions-
                                                                                          versicherungsanstalt der Angestellten, (1)
in Case C-17/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Collège juridictionnel de la Région de Bruxelles-
Capitale): François De Coster v Collège des bourgmestre                       (Social security for migrant workers — Regulation (EEC)
               et échevins de Watermael-Boitsfort (1)                         No 1408/71 — Articles 94(1), (2) and (3) — Old-age
                                                                              insurance — Periods of child-rearing completed in another
(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Defination of a                         Member State before the entry into force of Regulation
national court or tribunal — Freedom to provide services —                                                 No 1408/71)
Municipal tax on satellite dishes — Restriction on the
    freedom to receive television programmes by satellite)                                                (2002/C 84/29)
                               (2002/C 84/28)
                                                                                                  (Language of the case: German)
                        (Language of the case: French)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                                  in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                       in the European Court Reports)
                                                                              In Case C-28/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
In Case C-17/00: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                  by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary ruling
from the Collège juridictionnel de la Région de Bruxelles-                    in the proceedings pending before that court between Liselotte
 ---pagebreak--- 6.4.2002                  EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 84/19
Kauer and Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Angestellten, on                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
the interpretation of Article 94(1), (2) and (3) of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
application of social security schemes to employed persons, to                                        (Fifth Chamber)
self-employed persons and to members of their families
moving within the Community, as amended and updated by
Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ
1997 L 28, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                                            22 January 2002
S. von Bahr, President of the Fourth Chamber, acting for the
President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,
L. Sevón and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate                   in Case C-31/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
General: F.G. Jacobs, Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-             the Cour de Cassation): Conseil National de l’Ordre des
trator, has given a judgment on 7 February 2002, in which it                              Architectes v Nicolas Dreessen (1)
has ruled:
                                                                           (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 10 EC and
                                                                           43 EC — National legislation restricting access to the
                                                                           profession of architect to the possession of a diploma or
Article 94(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June            professional qualification — Community national holding a
1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed             diploma not listed in Directive 85/384/EEC — Obligation
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families         on the host Member State when presented with an application
moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated            to practise the profession of architect on its territory to make
by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, read              a comparison between the specialised knowledge and abilities
in conjunction, depending on the case, with Articles 8a, 48 and 52         certified by the diploma and the experience acquired, and the
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and                 qualifications required by its national legislation)
43 EC), is to be interpreted as precluding application of a Member
State’s legislation under which child-raising periods completed in
another State party to the Agreement on the European Economic
                                                                                                       (2002/C 84/30)
Area of 2 May 1992 or in another Member State of the European
Union are not treated as substitute periods for the purposes of old-
age insurance unless
                                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
—     they were completed after the entry into force of that regulation    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      in the first State, and                                                                  in the European Court Reports)
—     the applicant receives, or received, for the children concerned,
      cash maternity allowances or equivalent allowances under the         In Case C-31/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
      legislation of that same State,                                      by the Cour de Cassation (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                           the proceedings pending before that court between Conseil
                                                                           National de l’Ordre des Architectes and Nicolas Dreessen on
                                                                           the interpretation of Articles 10 EC and 43 EC, the Court (Fifth
                                                                           Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
when such periods completed in national territory are treated as           S. von Bahr, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola and
substitute periods for the purposes of old-age insurance without any       C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges, Advocate General: P. Léger,
limitation in time or any other condition.                                 Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has given a
                                                                           judgment on 22 January 2002, in which it has ruled:
                                                                           Article 43 EC is to be interpreted as meaning that where a
                                                                           Community national applies to the competent authorities of a
(1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.                                                  Member State for authorisation to practise a profession, access to
                                                                           which depends, under national legislation, on the possession of a
                                                                           diploma or professional qualification or on periods of practical
                                                                           experience, those authorities are required to take into consideration
                                                                           all of the diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal
                                                                           qualifications of the person concerned, and his relevant experience, by
                                                                           comparing the specialised knowledge and abilities so certified, and
                                                                           that experience, with the knowledge and qualifications required by