Karl Robert Kranemann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen.
Date: 2005-03-17
12. According to settled case-law, the concept of ‘worker’ within the meaning of Article 48 of the Treaty has a specific Community meaning and must not be interpreted narrowly. Any person who pursues activities which are real and genuine, to the exclusion of activities on such a small scale as to be regarded as purely marginal and ancillary, must be regarded as a ‘worker’. The essential feature of an employment relationship is, according to that case-law, that for a certain period of time a person performs services for and under the direction of another person in return for which he receives remuneration (see, in particular, Case 66/85 Lawrie-Blum [1986] ECR 2121, paragraphs 16 and 17, Case C-3/90 Bernini  [1992] ECR I-1071, paragraph 14, and Case C-456/02 Trojani  [2004] ECR I-0000, paragraph 15).
13. As regards those undergoing a traineeship, the Court has held that the fact that the traineeship may be regarded as practical preparation directly related to the actual pursuit of the occupation in point is not a bar to the application of Article 48 of the Treaty if the training period is completed under the conditions of genuine and effective activity as an employed person ( Lawrie-Blum , cited above, paragraph 19, and Bernini , cited above, paragraph 15).
14. As the Court held in Case C-79/99 Schnorbus  [2000] ECR I-10997, paragraph 28, the practical legal training required in Germany constitutes a period of training and a necessary prerequisite of access to employment in the judicial service or the higher civil service.
15. As regards the activities carried out by trainee lawyers, according to the order for reference such trainees are required to apply in practice the legal knowledge acquired during their course of study and thus make a contribution, under the guidance of the employer providing them with training, to that employer’s activities and trainees receive payment in the form of a maintenance allowance for the duration of their training.
16. Contrary to the contentions of the Land Nordrhein‑Westfalen, such an employment relationship cannot fall outside the scope of Article 48 of the Treaty merely because the allowance paid to trainees constitutes only assistance allowing them to meet their minimum needs and, for trainees undergoing practical training outside the public sector, the payment of such an allowance by the State could not be considered to be made in return for services rendered by the trainee.
17. According to settled case-law neither the origin of the funds from which the remuneration is paid nor the limited amount of the remuneration can have any consequence in regard to whether or not the person is a worker for the purposes of Community law (see Case 53/81 Levin  [1982] ECR 1035, paragraph 16; Case 344/87 Bettray  [1989] ECR 1621, paragraph 16; and Trojani , paragraph 16).
18. Given that trainee lawyers carry out genuine and effective activity as an employed person they must be considered to be workers within the meaning of Article 48 of the Treaty.
19. The application of Article 48 cannot be excluded on the basis of the exception laid down in Article 48(4) in respect of ‘employment in the public service’. As regards a trainee who is undergoing part of his training, as here, outside the public sector, suffice it to note that the concept of ‘employment in the public service’ does not encompass employment by a private natural or legal person, whatever the duties of the employee (Case C-283/99 Commission  v Italy  [2001] ECR I-4363, paragraph 25).
25. In that regard, the Court has held on numerous occasions that the Treaty provisions relating to freedom of movement for persons are intended to facilitate the pursuit by Community nationals of occupational activities of all kinds throughout the Community, and preclude measures which might place Community nationals at a disadvantage when they wish to pursue an economic activity in the territory of another Member State (Joined Cases 154/87 and 155/87 Wolf and Others  [1988] ECR 3897, paragraph 13, Case C-415/93 Bosman  [1995] ECR I-4921, paragraph 94, and Case C-18/95 Terhoeve  [1999] ECR I-345, paragraph 37, and Case C-190/98 Graf  [2000] ECR I-493, paragraph 21).
26. Provisions which preclude or deter a national of a Member State from leaving his country of origin in order to exercise his right to freedom of movement therefore constitute an obstacle to that freedom even if they apply without regard to the nationality of the workers concerned ( Bosman , cited above, paragraph 96, Terhoeve , cited above, paragraph 39, and Graf , cited above, paragraph 23, Case C-224/01 Köbler  [2003] ECR I-10239, paragraph 74, and Case C-232/01 Van Lent [2003] ECR I-11525, paragraph 16).
27. It follows that, where a Member State provides for a system of access to certain jobs based on a preparatory period of practical training during which trainees carry out genuine and effective activity as an employed person and where it also allows a trainee to undergo such training in another Member State, it must ensure that the detailed rules for the organisation of such training do not create restrictions of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty.
33. It should be pointed out, in that connection, that a measure which constitutes an obstacle to freedom of movement for workers could be accepted only if it pursued a legitimate aim compatible with the Treaty and were justified by pressing reasons of public interest. But even if that were so, application of that measure would still have to be such as to ensure achievement of the aim in question and not go beyond what is necessary for that purpose (see, inter alia, Case C-19/92 Kraus  [1993] ECR I-1663, paragraph 32, Bosman , paragraph 104, and Köbler , cited above, paragraph 77).
34. According to settled case-law, aims of a purely economic nature cannot constitute pressing reasons of public interest justifying a restriction of a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the Treaty (see Case 352/85 Bond van Adverteerders and Others  [1988] ECR 2085, paragraph 34, Case C-288/89 Collectieve Antennevoorziening Gouda  [1991] ECR I-4007, paragraph 11, Case C-398/95 SETTG [1997] ECR I-3091, paragraph 23, Case C-35/98 Verkooijen  [2000] ECR I-4071, paragraph 48, and Case 388/01 Commission  v Italy  [2003] ECR I-721, paragraph 22).