Hans-Jürgen Ritter-Coulais and Monique Ritter-Coulais v Finanzamt Germersheim.
Date: 2006-02-21
13. It is settled case-law that the procedure provided for by Article 234 EC is an instrument of cooperation between the Court of Justice and national courts (see, inter alia, Case C-343/90 Lourenço Dias  [1992] ECR I-4673, paragraph 14; Case C-112/00 Schmidberger  [2003] ECR I‑5659, paragraph 30 and the case-law cited therein; and Case C-314/01 Siemens and ARGE Telekom  [2004] ECR I-2549, paragraph 33).
14. In the context of that cooperation, the national court seised of the dispute, which alone has direct knowledge of the facts of the main action and must assume responsibility for the subsequent judicial decision, is in the best position to assess, having regard to the particular features of the case, whether a preliminary ruling is necessary to enable it to give judgment and the relevance of the questions which it refers to the Court (see, inter alia, Lourenço Dias , cited above, paragraph 15; Case C-390/99 Canal Satélite Digital  [2002] ECR I-607, paragraph 18; Schmidberger , cited above, paragraph 31; and Siemens and ARGE Telekom , cited above, paragraph 34).
15. That does not alter the fact that it is for the Court, where necessary, to examine the circumstances in which the case was referred to it by the national court in order to assess whether it has jurisdiction and, in particular, determine whether the interpretation of Community law that is sought bears any relation to the facts of the main action or its purpose, so that the Court is not obliged to deliver advisory opinions on general or hypothetical questions. If it appears that the question raised is manifestly irrelevant for the purposes of deciding the case, the Court must declare that there is no need to proceed to judgment (Case 244/80 Foglia [1981] ECR 3045, paragraph 21; Lourenço Dias , cited above, paragraph 20; Canal Satélite Digital , cited above, paragraph 19; Case C-167/01 Inspire Art [2003] ECR I-10155, paragraphs 44 and 45; and Siemens and ARGE Telekom , cited above, paragraph 35).
19. With regard to freedom of establishment, it should be noted that, according to settled case-law, this includes the right to take up and practice activities as a self-employed person (C-9/02 De Lasteyrie du Saillant  [2004] ECR I-2409, paragraph 40 and case-law cited therein).
24. It should be recalled that Article 67(1) EEC (subsequently Article 67(1) of the EC Treaty, itself repealed by the Treaty of Amsterdam) did not have the effect of abolishing restrictions on movements of capital by the end of the transitional period. Their abolition was a matter for Council directives adopted on the basis of Article 69 of the EEC Treaty (subsequently Article 69 EC, itself repealed by the Treaty of Amsterdam) (see Case 203/80 Casati  [1981] ECR 2595, paragraphs 8 to 13; and Case C-483/93 Svensson and Gustavsson  [1995] ECR I-3955, paragraph 5).
29. It must be noted that even though, strictly speaking, the national court has directed its reference for a preliminary ruling solely to the interpretation of freedom of establishment and the free movement of capital, the Court is not thereby precluded from providing the national court with all those elements for the interpretation of Community law which may be of assistance in adjudicating on the case pending before it, whether or not that court has specifically referred to them in its questions (see, to that effect, Case C-241/89 SARPP  [1990] ECR I‑4695, paragraph 8; Case C-315/92 Verband Sozialer Wettbewerb (‘Clinique’)  [1994] ECR I-317, paragraph 7; Case C-87/97 Consorzio per la tutela del formaggio Gorgonzola  [1999] ECR I-1301, paragraph 16; and Case C-387/01 Weigel  [2004] ECR I-4981, paragraph 44).
31. It should be noted that any Community national who, irrespective of his place of residence and his nationality, has exercised the right to freedom of movement for workers and who has been employed in a Member State other than that of residence falls within the scope of Article 48 EC (see Case C-385/00 De Groot  [2002] ECR I-11819, paragraph 76; Case C-209/01 Schilling and Fleck-Schilling [2003] ECR I-13389, paragraph 23; and Case C-277/03 Van Pommeren-Bourgondiën [2005] ECR I‑0000, paragraphs 19, 44 and 45).
32. It follows that the situation of the appellants in the main proceedings, who worked in a Member State other than that of their actual place of residence, falls within the scope of Article 48 EC.
33. Moreover, it is settled case-law that all of the Treaty provisions relating to the 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 (Case C‑370/90 Singh  [1992] ECR I-4265, paragraph 16, Case C-18/95 Terhoeve  [1999] ECR I-345, paragraph 37; Case C-190/98 Graf  [2000] ECR I-493, paragraph 21; Case C-302/98 Sehrer  [2000] ECR I‑4585, paragraph 32, and Schilling and Fleck-Schilling , cited above, paragraph 24).
36. Even though the national legislation is not specifically directed at non-residents, the latter are more likely to own a home outside Germany than resident citizens.
37. It follows that the treatment of non-resident workers under the national legislation is less favourable than that afforded to workers who reside in Germany in their own homes.
38. Consequently, legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings is, as a rule, contrary to Article 48 EC.