CELEX: C2004/047/07
Language: en
Date: 2004-02-21 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of 13 January 2004 in Case C-256/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division): Debra Allonby v Accrington & Rossendale College, Education Lecturing Services, trading as Protocol Professional, formerly Education Lecturing Services Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Principle of equal pay for men and women — Direct effect — Meaning of worker — Self-employed female lecturer undertaking work presumed to be of equal value to that which is undertaken in the same college by male lecturers who are employees, but under contract with a third company — Self-employed lecturers not eligible for membership of an occupational pension scheme)

C 47/4                   EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               21.2.2004
Community law on freedom to provide services precludes a business             composed of: V. Skouris, acting for the President of the
from being subject to an obligation to be entered on the trades register      Sixth Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, F. Macken and
which delays, complicates or renders more onerous the provision of its        N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
services in the host Member State where the conditions prescribed by          General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
the directive governing recognition of professional qualifications            has given a judgment on 15 January 2004, in which it has
which is applicable to pursuit of that activity in the host Member            ruled:
State are satisfied.
                                                                              Articles 1 and 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of
                                                                              28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and
The mere fact that a business established in one Member State
                                                                              milk products sector do not authorise the competent body to act
supplies identical or similar services in a repeated or more or less
                                                                              directly, in cases other than that of direct sales, against a producer to
regular manner in a second Member State, without having an
                                                                              recover the amount owed by him in respect of the additional levy on
infrastructure there enabling it to pursue a professional activity there
                                                                              milk. However, the Member States’ obligation under Article 10 EC
on a stable and continuous basis and, from the infrastructure, to hold
                                                                              to take measures to ensure collection of the levy in the event of the
itself out to, amongst others, nationals of the second Member State,
                                                                              mechanism provided for in Article 2(2) of that regulation being
cannot be sufficient for it to be regarded as established in the second
                                                                              frustrated includes the power to take direct action against the producer
Member State.
                                                                              with a view to recovering the amount payable where it is established
                                                                              that the producer has not paid it to the purchaser and that the
                                                                              purchaser is not taking due steps to collect it from the producer. On
(1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.
                                                                              the other hand, non-compliance with the conditions laid down in
                                                                              Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March
                                                                              1993 laying down detailed rules on the application of the additional
                                                                              levy on milk and milk products, and in particular the absence of
                                                                              approval as purchaser, is not in itself relevant.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                         of 15 January 2004
                                                                                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-230/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division):
The Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce v Peny-                                                of 13 January 2004
                   coed Farming Partnership (1)
                                                                              in Case C-256/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
(Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 — Additional levy in the                         the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division):
milk and milk products sector — Deliveries by a producer to                   Debra Allonby v Accrington & Rossendale College, Edu-
a purchaser — Payment of levy — Recovery from the                             cation Lecturing Services, trading as Protocol Pro-
                               producer)                                      fessional, formerly Education Lecturing Services Sec-
                                                                                    retary of State for Education and Employment (1)
                           (2004/C 47/06)
                                                                              (Principle of equal pay for men and women — Direct effect
                                                                              — Meaning of worker — Self-employed female lecturer
                     (Language of the case: English)                          undertaking work presumed to be of equal value to that
                                                                              which is undertaken in the same college by male lecturers
                                                                              who are employees, but under contract with a third company
                                                                              — Self-employed lecturers not eligible for membership of an
In Case C-230/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                                        occupational pension scheme)
EC by the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                                           (2004/C 47/07)
court between The Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce
and Penycoed Farming Partnership, on the interpretation of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992                                            (Language of the case: English)
establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products
sector (OJ 1992 L 405, p. 1) and Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 laying down detailed rules
on the application of the additional levy on milk and milk                    In Case C-256/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
products (OJ 1993 L 57, p. 12), the Court (Sixth Chamber),                    EC by the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)
 ---pagebreak--- 21.2.2004                 EN                              Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 47/5
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
court between Debra Allonby and Accrington & Rossendale
College, Education Lecturing Services, trading as Protocol                                              of 11 December 2003
Professional, formerly Education Lecturing Services Secretary
of State for Education and Employment, on the interpretation
of Article 141 EC, the Court, composed of: V. Skouris,                            in Case C-322/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann and                             from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main): Deutscher
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Presidents of Chambers), A. La Pergola,                     Apothekerverband eV v 0800 DocMorris NV, Jacques
J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric (Rappor-                                               Waterval (1)
teur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General;
L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given                 (Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Directives 92/28/EEC and
a judgment on 13 January 2004, in which it has ruled:                             2000/31/EC — National legislation restricting internet
                                                                                  sales of medicinal products for human use by pharmacies
                                                                                  established in another Member State — Doctor’s prescription
1.     In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings,                    required for supply — Prohibition on advertising the sale of
       Article 141(1) EC must be interpreted as meaning that a                                    medicinal products by mail order)
       woman whose contract of employment with an undertaking has
       not been renewed and who is immediately made available to                                            (2004/C 47/08)
       her previous employer through another undertaking to provide
       the same services is not entitled to rely, vis-à-vis the intermediary
                                                                                                     (Language of the case: German)
       undertaking, on the principle of equal pay, using as a basis for
       comparison the remuneration received for equal work or work
       of the same value by a man employed by the woman’s previous                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
       employer.                                                                                     in the European Court Reports)
2.     Article 141(1) EC must be interpreted as meaning that a
       woman in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings               In Case C-322/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
       is not entitled to rely on the principle of equal pay in order to          EC by the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) for a
       secure entitlement to membership of an occupational pension                preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
       scheme for teachers set up by State legislation of which only              court between Deutscher Apothekerverband eV and 0800
       teachers with a contract of employment may become members,                 DocMorris NV, Jacques Waterval, on the interpretation of
       using as a basis for comparison the remuneration, including                Articles 28 EC and 30 EC and of Article 1(3) and (4) and
       such a right of membership, received for equal work or work of             Articles 2 and 3 of Council Directive 92/28/EEC of 31 March
       the same value by a man employed by the woman’s previous                   1992 on the advertising of medicinal products for human use
       employer.                                                                  (OJ 1992 L 113, p. 13), in conjunction with Directive 2000/
                                                                                  31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June
                                                                                  2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services,
3.     In the absence of any objective justification, the requirement,            in particular electronic commerce, in the internal market (‘the
       imposed by State legislation, of being employed under a contract           Directive on electronic commerce’) (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1),
       of employment as a precondition for membership of a pension                the Court, composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann,
       scheme for teachers is not applicable where it is shown that,              C.W.A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and
       among the teachers who are workers within the meaning of                   A. Rosas (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward (Rappor-
       Article 141(1) EC and fulfil all the other conditions for                  teur), A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, F. Macken,
       membership, a much lower percentage of women than of men                   N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate
       is able to fulfil that condition. The formal classification of a           General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
       self-employed person under national law does not change the                has given a judgment on 11 December 2003, in which it has
       fact that a person must be classified as a worker within the               ruled:
       meaning of that article if his independence is merely notional.
                                                                                  1.    a)   A national prohibition on the sale by mail order of
4.     Article 141(1) EC must be interpreted as meaning that where                           medicinal products the sale of which is restricted to
       State legislation is at issue, the applicability of that provision                    pharmacies in the Member State concerned, such as
       vis-à-vis an undertaking is not subject to the condition that the                     the prohibition laid down in Paragraph 43(1) of the
       worker concerned can be compared with a worker of the other                           Arzneimittelgesetz (Law on medicinal products) in the
       sex who is or has been employed by the same employer and who                          version of 7 September 1998, is a measure having an
       has received higher pay for equal work or work of equal value.                        effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction for the
                                                                                             purposes of Article 28 EC.
                                                                                        (b) Article 30 EC may be relied on to justify a national
(1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.                                                                  prohibition on the sale by mail order of medicinal products
                                                                                             which may be sold only in pharmacies in the Member
                                                                                             State concerned in so far as the prohibition covers
                                                                                             medicinal products subject to prescription. However,
                                                                                             Article 30 EC cannot be relied on to justify an absolute