CELEX: 62018CN0830
Language: en
Date: 2018-12-28 00:00:00
Title: Case C-830/18: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany) lodged on 28 December 2018 — PF and Others v Landkreis Südliche Weinstraße

8.4.2019   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 131/21
            
         
      Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany) lodged on 28 December 2018 — PF and Others v Landkreis Südliche Weinstraße
      (Case C-830/18)
      (2019/C 131/26)
      Language of the case: German
      
         Referring court
      
      Oberverwaltungsgericht Rheinland-Pfalz
      
         Parties to the main proceedings
      
      
         Appellant: Landkreis Südliche Weinstraße
      
         Respondents: PF and Others
      
         Other party: Vertreter des öffentlichen Interesses
      
         Questions referred
      
      
                  1.
               
               
                  Is Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a provision of national law limiting the obligation of national local authorities (districts) regarding school transport to the residents of the wider constituent state (Land) has an indirectly discriminatory effect, even if it is established, on the basis of the factual circumstances, that the residence requirement quite predominantly excludes residents of the rest of the territory of the Member State from the benefit?
                  If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative:
               
            
                  2.
               
               
                  Does the effective organisation of the school system constitute an imperative requirement of public interest which is capable of justifying indirect discrimination?
               
            
         (1)  OJ 2011 L 141, p. 1.