CELEX: C1999/265/07
Language: en
Date: 1999-09-18 00:00:00
Title: Case C-268/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arrondissementsrechtbank 's-Gravenhage, sitting in Amsterdam, by decision of 15 July 1999 in the case of A.M. Jany, E. Padevetova, R. Zacalova, Z. Hrubcinova, S. Überlackerova, and K.A. Szepietowska v Staatssecretaris van Justitie

C 265/4                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     18.9.1999
II. Are the conditions laid down in Article 3(1)(a) and (d) of         1. Can Polish and Czech nationals rely directly on the
     the regulation satisfied if a plant protection product has           Agreements in the sense that they are entitled, vis-à-vis a
     been produced by means of a patented process as a result             Member State, to claim that they derive a right to admission
     of which it contains a lower amount of unavoidable                   and residence from the right laid down in Article 44 of the
     impurities than an existing plant protection product with            Agreement with Poland/Article 45 of the Agreement with
     the same active substance, a new authorisation has been              the Czech Republic to take up and pursue economic
     obtained for this new plant protection product, and the              activities as self-employed persons and to set up and
     patent covering the manufacturing process in question was            manage undertakings, irrespective of the policy which the
     designated as the basic patent within the meaning of                 Member State in question pursues in this regard?
     Article 3(1), opening passage and subparagraph (a)?
(1) OJ 1996 L 198, p. 30.                                              2. If the answer to that question is in the affirmative: is a
                                                                          Member State free undet Article 58 of the Agreement with
                                                                          Poland/ Article 59 of the Agreement with the Czech
                                                                          Republic to make the right to admission and residence
                                                                          subject to specific conditions such as those contained in
                                                                          the policy followed by the Netherlands, which include the
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale                     condition that the alien must be able, by carrying on
Amministrative Regionale per la Lombardia (Lombardy                       his business, to receive adequate means of support [in
Regional Administrative Court), third Section, by order                   accordance with Chapter A4/4.2.1. of the 1994 VC, this
of that court of 27 November 1998 in the case of Excelsior                means a net income which is at least equal to the
SNC di Pedrotti Bruna & C., formerly Excelsior SNC di                     subsistence level within the meaning of the Algemene
Costa Rodolfo & C. v Ente Autonomo Fiera Internazionale                   Bijstandswet (General Law on Welfare)]?
di Milano and CIFTAT, a limited liability cooperative
                             society
                                                                       3. Does Article 44 of the Agreement with Poland/Article 45
                        (Case C-260/99)                                   of the Agreement with the Czech Republic allow prosti-
                                                                          tution to be excluded from the notion of ‘economic
                        (1999/C 265/06)                                   activities as self-employed persons’ on the ground that
                                                                          prostitution does not come within the description in
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                          Article 44(4), opening words and (c), of the Agreement
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale Amminis-
                                                                          with Poland/Article 45(4), opening words and (c), of the
trative Regionale per la Lombardia (Lombardy Regional
                                                                          Agreement with the Czech Republic for reasons of a moral
Administrative Court), third Section, of 27 November 1998,
                                                                          nature, on the ground that prostitution is prohibited in (a
which was received at the Court Registry on 13 July 1999, for
                                                                          majority of) the associate countries, and on the ground
a preliminary ruling in the case of Excelsior SNC di Pedrotti
                                                                          that it gives rise to problems concerning the freedom of
Bruna & C., formerly Excelsior SNC di Costa Rodolfo & C. v
                                                                          action of prostitutes and their independence which are
Ente Autonomo Fiera Internazionale di Milano and CIFTAT, a
                                                                          difficult to monitor?
limited liability cooperative society on the following question:
May the definition of a body governed by public law contained          4. Do Article 43 (ex Article 52) of the EC Treaty and
in Article 1(b) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC (1) of 18 June             Article 44 of the Agreement with Poland/Article 45 of
1992 be deemed applicable to the Ente Autonomo Fiera                      the Agreement with the Czech Republic permit such a
Internazionale di Milano?                                                 distinction to be drawn between the notions of ‘activities
                                                                          as self-employed persons’ and ‘economic activities as
(1) OJ 1992 L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.                                     self-employed persons’ featuring in those respective pro-
                                                                          visions that the activities carried out by a prostitute in a
                                                                          self-employed capacity come within the term used in
                                                                          Article 43 (ex Article 52) of the EC Treaty but not within
                                                                          that used in those articles of the Agreements?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arrondisse-
mentsrechtbank ’s-Gravenhage, sitting in Amsterdam,
by decision of 15 July 1999 in the case of A.M. Jany,                  5. If the answer to the previous question is that the distinction
E. Padevetova, R. Zacalova, Z. Hrubcinova, S. Über-                      therein referred to is permissible:
lackerova, and K.A. Szepietowska v Staatssecretaris van
                             Justitie
                                                                          a) Is it compatible with Article 44 of the Agreement with
                        (Case C-268/99)                                        Poland/Article 45 of the Agreement with the Czech
                                                                               Republic and the freedom of establishment which
                        (1999/C 265/07)                                        those provisions are intended to realise to impose
                                                                               minimum conditions on the self-employed persons
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         referred to in paragraph (3) of those articles in regard
European Communities by decision of 15 July 1999 from the                      to the range of their activities and also to impose
Arrondissementsrechtbank ’s-Gravenhage (District Court, The                    restrictions such as that:
Hague), sitting in Amsterdam, which was received at the Court
Registry or 19 July 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of A.M. Jany, E. Padevetova R. Zacalova, Z. Hrubcinova,                   — the operator must perform skilled work;
S. Überlackerova, and K.A. Szepietowska v Staatssecretaris van
Justitie on the following questions:                                           — a business strategy must exist;
 ---pagebreak--- 18.9.1999            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 265/5
       — the operator must (also) attend to the management            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
           of the business and not (exclusively) to the execu-        Nederlanden, by judgment of 6 July 1999 in the criminal
           tive (production) activities;                                         proceedings against G.A.P. van der Burg
                                                                                               (Case C-278/99)
       — the operator must strive to ensure continuity of
           the undertaking, which means inter alla that the                                    (1999/C 265/08)
           must have this principal place of residence in the
           Netherlands;                                               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by judgment of 6 July 1999 from
                                                                      the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the
       — there must be investment, and long-term commit-              Netherlands), which was received at the Court Registry on
           ments must be entered into?                                26 July 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceed-
                                                                      ings against G.A.P. van der Burg on the following questions:
                                                                      1. Must Article 1 of Directive 83/189 (1) be interpreted as
   b) Does Article 44 of the Agreement with Poland/                       meaning that Article C.11.1(1) of the Besluit radio-elektrische
                                                                          inrichtingen (Decree on Radio-Electrical Equipment), which
       Article 45 of the Agreement with the Czech Republic
                                                                          provides that ‘It is prohibited to make commercial adver-
       provide justification for not regarding as self-employed           tisements, or cause commercial advertisements to be made,
       any person who is dependent on and indebted to the                 for transmitting equipment which is not of an approved
       person who recruited her and/or placed her in work,                type’, should be treated as a technical regulation within the
       even though it is established that, as between the                 meaning of Directive 83/189, regard being had to the
       person concerned and that third party, there is no                 statutory rules set out above [...] and in light of the issues
       question of an employment relationship, against which              considered in that context [...]?
       the term ‘self-employed’ in paragraph 4 of Articles 44
       and 45 of the Agreements seeks to establish a barrier?         2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: does this
                                                                          have the result that such a provision cannot be applied
                                                                          only if it constitutes a barrier to trace of to the free
                                                                          movement of goods in a specific case, or should it be held
                                                                          that such a provision must be set aside if the provision
                                                                          generally, and thus irrespective of the specific case, has or
                                                                          may have the effect of a barrier to trade?
                                                                      (1) OJ 1983 L 109, p. 8.