CELEX: C2000/006/33
Language: en
Date: 2000-01-08 00:00:00
Title: Case C-413/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, London, by order of that court of 28 May 1999, in the case of Baumbast and "R" against Secretary of State for the Home Department

C 6/18                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8.1.2000
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Immigration                     The questions exclusive to the Baumbast
Appeal Tribunal, London, by order of that court of                        case
28 May 1999, in the case of Baumbast and ‘R’ against
          Secretary of State for the Home Department
                                                                          Question 3
                          (Case C-413/99)                                 (a) On the facts of Mr. Baumbast’s case, does he, as an EU
                                                                               citizen, enjoy a directly effective right of residence in
                                                                               another EU Member State pursuant to article 18 (ex article
                           (2000/C 6/33)                                       8a) of the Treaty of Rome in circumstances where he no
                                                                               longer enjoys rights of residence as a worker under article
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         39 (ex article 48) of the Treaty of Rome, and does not
European Communities by an order of the Immigration Appeal                     qualify for residence in the host state under any other
Tribunal, London, of 28 May 1999, which was received at the                    provision of EU law?
Court Registry on 28 October 1999, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Baumbast and ‘R’ against Secretary of State for            (b) If so, are his wife and children consequently able to enjoy
the Home Department, on the following questions:                               derivative residence, employment and other rights?
                                                                          (c) If so, do they do so on the basis of articles 11 and 12 of
                                                                               Regulation 1612/68 or some other (and if so, which)
Question 1                                                                     provision of EU law?
(a) Are children of a citizen of the European Union who are               Question 4
     themselves such citizens and who have installed themselves
     in primary education during the exercise by their father (or         (a) Assuming that the preceding question is answered in the
     parent) of rights of residence as a worker in another                     EU citizen’s disfavour, do that person’s family members
     member state of which he is not a national (’the host state’)             retain the derivative rights that they, as such members,
     entitled to reside in the host state in order to undergo                  originally acquired upon being installed in the UK with a
     general educational courses there, pursuant to article 12 of              worker?
     Council Regulation 1612/68? (1)
                                                                          (b) If so, what are the conditions that apply?
(b) Insofar as the answer to the preceding question may vary
     in circumstances where:                                              (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968
                                                                              on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ
     (i) their parents are divorced;                                          L 257 of 19.10.1968, p. 2) (SE SER1 68/II) p. 475).
     (ii) only one parent is a citizen of the European Union and
           that parent has ceased to be a worker within the host
           state;
     (iii) the children are not themselves citizens of the Euro-
           pean Union;                                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
                                                                          Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division (Patent
                                                                          Court), by order of that court of 24 June 1999, in the case
     what criteria are to be applied by the national authorities?                of Zino Davidoff SA against A & G Imports Ltd
                                                                                                   (Case C-414/99)
Question 2
                                                                                                    (2000/C 6/34)
Where children have the right to reside in a host state in order
to undergo general education courses pursuant to article 12 of            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Council Regulation 1612/68, is the obligation of the host state           European Communities by an order of the High Court of
to ‘encourage all efforts to enable such children to attend these         Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division (Patent Court),
courses under the best possible conditions’ to be interpreted             of 24 June 1999, which was received at the Court Registry on
as entitling their primary carer, whether or not a citizen of the         29 October 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Zino
Union, to reside with them in order to facilitate such a right            Davidoff SA against A & G Imports Ltd, on the following
notwithstanding:                                                          questions:
                                                                          (A) Insofar as the Directive (1) refers to goods being put on the
(i) their parents are divorced; or                                             market in the Community with the consent of the pro-
                                                                               prietor of a mark, is it to be interpreted as including
(ii) the father who is a citizen of the European Union ceases                  consent given expressly or implicitly and directly or
     to be a worker within the host state?                                     indirectly.