larimo/cjeu-paragraph-retrieval huggingface dataset:
Criminal proceedings against Lucas Asjes and others, Andrew Gray and others, Andrew Gray and others, Jacques Maillot and others and Léo Ludwig and others.
Date: 1986-04-30
12 IT SHOULD BE POINTED OUT IN THE FIRST PLACE THAT SINCE THE PRELIMINARY RULING PROCEDURE UNDER ARTICLE 177 IS NOT CONCERNED WITH THE INTERPRETATION OF NATIONAL LAWS OR REGULATIONS ( SEE JUDGMENT OF 13 MARCH 1984 , CASE 16/83 PRANTL ( 1984 ) ECR 1299 ), ANY INACCURACIES IN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE RELEVANT NATIONAL PROVISIONS GIVEN BY THE NATIONAL COURT IN ITS JUDGMENT REQUESTING A PRELIMINARY RULING CANNOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF DENYING THE COURT OF JUSTICE ' S JURISDICTION TO REPLY TO THE QUESTION REFERRED TO IT BY THE NATIONAL COURT .
37 ARTICLE 61 OF THE TREATY PROVIDES THAT FREEDOM TO PROVIDE SERVICES IN THE FIELD OF TRANSPORT IS GOVERNED NOT BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHAPTER ON SERVICES BUT BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE TITLE RELATING TO THE COMMON TRANSPORT POLICY . IN THE TRANSPORT SECTOR , THEREFORE , THE OBJECTIVE LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 59 OF THE TREATY OF ABOLISHING DURING THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD RESTRICTIONS ON FREEDOM TO PROVIDE SERVICES SHOULD HAVE BEEN ATTAINED IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE COMMON POLICY PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLES 74 AND 75 .
44 THE COURT RULED IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 4 APRIL 1974 ( SUPRA ) THAT ARTICLE 84 ( 2 ) SERVES MERELY TO EXCLUDE , SO LONG AS THE COUNCIL HAS NOT DECIDED OTHERWISE , SEA AND AIR TRANSPORT FROM THE RULES OF TITLE IV OF PART TWO OF THE TREATY RELATING TO THE COMMON TRANSPORT POLICY .
45 IT FOLLOWS THAT AIR TRANSPORT REMAINS , ON THE SAME BASIS AS THE OTHER MODES OF TRANSPORT , SUBJECT TO THE GENERAL RULES OF THE TREATY , INCLUDING THE COMPETITION RULES .

D - CONSEQUENCES IN THE AIR TRANSPORT SECTOR OF THE ABSENCE OF RULES IMPLEMENTING ARTICLES 85 AND 86
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
Date: 1986-04-30
10 IT MUST FIRST BE POINTED OUT THAT NATIONALS OF A MEMBER STATE WHO PURSUE THEIR OCCUPATION IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE ARE OBLIGED TO COMPLY WITH THE RULES WHICH GOVERN THE PURSUIT OF THE OCCUPATION IN QUESTION IN THAT MEMBER STATE . AS THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT RIGHTLY OBSERVES , IN THE CASE OF THE MEDICAL AND DENTAL PROFESSIONS THOSE RULES REFLECT IN PARTICULAR A CONCERN TO ENSURE THAT INDIVIDUALS ENJOY THE MOST EFFECTIVE AND COMPLETE HEALTH PROTECTION POSSIBLE .
13 SECONDLY , IT MUST BE OBSERVED THAT THE GENERAL RULE PROHIBITING DOCTORS AND DENTAL PRACTITIONERS ESTABLISHED IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE FROM PRACTISING IN FRANCE IS UNDULY RESTRICTIVE . FIRST OF ALL , IN THE CASE OF CERTAIN MEDICAL SPECIALTIES , IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE SPECIALIST SHOULD BE CLOSE TO THE PATIENT ON A CONTINUOUS BASIS AFTER THE TREATMENT HAS BEEN GIVEN . THAT IS SO WHERE THE SPECIALIST CARRIES OUT A SINGLE PROCEDURE , AS IS OFTEN THE CASE OF A RADIOLOGIST , FOR EXAMPLE , OR WHERE SUBSEQUENT CARE IS PROVIDED BY OTHER MEDICAL PERSONNEL , AS IS OFTEN THE CASE OF A SURGEON . FURTHERMORE , AS THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT INDEED RECOGNIZED , RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE MEDICAL PROFESSION SHOW THAT EVEN IN THE AREA OF GENERAL MEDICINE THE INCREASING TREND IS FOR PRACTITIONERS TO BELONG TO GROUP PRACTICES , SO THAT A PATIENT CANNOT ALWAYS CONSULT THE SAME GENERAL PRACTITIONER .
Criminal proceedings against Claude Muller and others.
Date: 1986-05-06
25 IL APPARTIENT AUX AUTORITES NATIONALES COMPETENTES DE DEMONTRER , DANS CHAQUE CAS , QUE LEUR REGLEMENTATION EST NECESSAIRE POUR PROTEGER EFFECTIVEMENT LES INTERETS VISES A L ' ARTICLE 36 DU TRAITE ET , NOTAMMENT , QUE LA COMMERCIALISATION DU PRODUIT EN QUESTION PRESENTE UN RISQUE POUR LA SANTE PUBLIQUE ET , LE CAS ECHEANT , QUE L ' ADJONCTION DES AGENTS DONT IL S ' AGIT NE REPOND PAS A UN BESOIN REEL .
26 POUR CES RAISONS , IL Y A LIEU DE REPONDRE A LA SECONDE QUESTION QUE LES ARTICLES 30 A 36 DU TRAITE NE S ' OPPOSENT PAS A CE QU ' UN ETAT MEMBRE INTERDISE LA COMMERCIALISATION DE DENREES ALIMENTAIRES , IMPORTEES D ' AUTRES ETATS MEMBRES OU ELLES SONT LEGALEMENT COMMERCIALISEES , AUXQUELLES UNE DES SUBSTANCES ENUMEREES A L ' ANNEXE I DE LA DIRECTIVE 74/329 , DU 18 JUIN 1974 , A ETE AJOUTEE , POURVU QUE LA COMMERCIALISATION SOIT AUTORISEE , SELON UNE PROCEDURE FACILEMENT ACCESSIBLE AUX OPERATEURS ECONOMIQUES , LORSQUE L ' ADJONCTION DE LA SUBSTANCE EN QUESTION REPOND A UN BESOIN REEL ET QU ' ELLE NE PRESENTE PAS UN RISQUE POUR LA SANTE PUBLIQUE . IL APPARTIENT AUX AUTORITES NATIONALES COMPETENTES DE DEMONTRER DANS CHAQUE CAS , A LA LUMIERE DES HABITUDES ALIMENTAIRES NATIONALES ET COMPTE TENU DES RESULTATS DE LA RECHERCHE SCIENTIFIQUE INTERNATIONALE , QUE LEUR REGLEMENTATION EST NECESSAIRE POUR PROTEGER EFFECTIVEMENT LES INTERETS VISES A L ' ARTICLE 36 DU TRAITE .
Jean-Pierre Barcella and others v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1986-05-07
12 AN OFFICIAL MAY CHALLENGE HIS CLASSIFICATION ON RECRUITMENT ONLY UNDER THE CONDITIONS AND WITHIN THE TIME-LIMITS LAID DOWN IN THE STAFF REGULATIONS ( SEE THE JUDGMENT OF 1 DECEMBER 1983 IN CASE 198/82 BLOMEFIELD V COMMISSION ( 1983 ) ECR 3981 ). THE TIME-LIMITS LAID DOWN IN ARTICLES 90 AND 91 OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS ARE MANDATORY AND ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE PARTIES OR OF THE COURT , SINCE THEY WERE LAID DOWN WITH A VIEW TO ENSURING CLARITY AND LEGAL CERTAINTY ( SEE THE JUDGMENTS OF 20 MARCH 1984 IN JOINED CASES 75 AND 117/82 RAZZOUK AND BEYDOUN V COMMISSION ( 1984 ) ECR 1509 , AND 12 JULY 1984 IN CASE 227/83 MOUSSIS V COMMISSION ( 1984 ) ECR 3133 ). AN OFFICIAL CANNOT CONTRIVE TO RE-OPEN THE LIMITATION PERIODS BY SUBMITTING A REQUEST TO THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY UNDER ARTICLE 90 ( 1 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS RATHER THAN A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE DECISION ADVERSELY AFFECTING HIM . THE APPLICANTS '  ' REQUESTS FOR RECLASSIFICATION '  MUST THEREFORE BE REGARDED AS COMPLAINTS WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 90 ( 2 ) OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT WITHIN THREE MONTHS OF THE ACT ADVERSELY AFFECTING THEM .
Jean-Pascal Rihoux and others v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1986-05-07
12 AU NOMBRE DE CES CONTRAINTES PROCEDURALES FIGURE LE PRINCIPE , RAPPELE PAR UNE JURISPRUDENCE CONSTANTE , SELON LEQUEL L ' ARTICLE 91 DU STATUT A POUR OBJET DE PERMETTRE ET DE FAVORISER UN REGLEMENT AMIABLE DU DIFFEREND SURGI ENTRE LES FONCTIONNAIRES ET L ' ADMINISTRATION . POUR SATISFAIRE A CETTE EXIGENCE , IL IMPORTE QUE CETTE DERNIERE SOIT EN MESURE DE CONNAITRE AVEC UNE PRECISION SUFFISANTE LES GRIEFS OU DESIDERATA DE L ' INTERESSE . PAR CONTRE , CETTE DISPOSITION N ' A PAS POUR OBJET DE LIER , DE FACON RIGOUREUSE ET DEFINITIVE , LA PHASE CONTENTIEUSE EVENTUELLE DES LORS QUE LE RECOURS CONTENTIEUX NE MODIFIE NI LA CAUSE NI L ' OBJET DE LA RECLAMATION ( ARRET DU 1ER JUILLET 1976 , SERGY/COMMISSION , 58/75 , REC . P . 1153 ; ARRET DU 20 MARS 1984 , RAZZOUK ET BEYDOUN/COMMISSION , 75/82 , REC . P . 1509 ; ARRET DU 23 JANVIER 1986 , RASMUSSEN/COMMISSION , 173/84 , REC . P . 197 ).
Emir Gül v Regierungspräsident Düsseldorf.
Date: 1986-05-07
17 CET ARGUMENT NE SAURAIT ETRE ACCUEILLI . LA FACULTE DES ETATS MEMBRES DE LIMITER LA LIBRE CIRCULATION DES PERSONNES POUR DES MOTIFS DE SANTE PUBLIQUE N ' A PAS POUR OBJET DE METTRE LE SECTEUR DE LA SANTE PUBLIQUE , EN TANT QUE SECTEUR ECONOMIQUE ET DU POINT DE VUE DE L ' ACCES A L ' EMPLOI , A L ' ABRI DE L ' APPLICATION DES PRINCIPES DE LA LIBRE CIRCULATION , MAIS DE POUVOIR REFUSER L ' ACCES OU LE SEJOUR SUR LEUR TERRITOIRE A DES PERSONNES DONT L ' ACCES OU LE SEJOUR SUR CE TERRITOIRE CONSTITUERAIT , EN TANT QUE TEL , UN DANGER POUR LA SANTE PUBLIQUE .
20 IL FAUT D ' ABORD SOULIGNER , COMME LA COMMISSION L ' A FAIT A JUSTE TITRE , QUE LES DROITS QUE CONFERENT LES ARTICLES 10 ET 11 DU REGLEMENT NO 1612/68 AU CONJOINT DU TRAVAILLEUR MIGRANT SONT LIES A CEUX QUE DETIENT CE TRAVAILLEUR EN VERTU DE L ' ARTICLE 48 DU TRAITE ET DES ARTICLES 1ER ET SUIVANTS DU REGLEMENT . DANS LA MESURE OU LE CONJOINT PEUT INVOQUER CES DROITS DERIVES ET OU SES DROITS IMPLIQUENT L ' ACCES A DES ACTIVITES SALARIEES CONFORMEMENT A L ' ARTICLE 11 , CES ACTIVITES DOIVENT POUVOIR ETRE EXERCEES DANS LES MEMES CONDITIONS QUE LE TRAVAILLEUR , TITULAIRE DU DROIT A LA LIBRE CIRCULATION , EXERCE LES SIENNES . L ' ARTICLE 3 , PARAGRAPHE 1 , DU REGLEMENT IMPOSE POUR AUTANT AUX AUTORITES DE L ' ETAT MEMBRE D ' ACCUEIL D ' APPLIQUER UN TRAITEMENT NON DISCRIMINATOIRE A CE CONJOINT . LE TRAITEMENT '  NATIONAL '  DONT BENEFICIENT , A CET EGARD , LES TRAVAILLEURS DES ETATS MEMBRES EST AINSI ETENDU A LEURS CONJOINTS .
Oryzomyli Kavallas OEE and others v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1986-05-15
11 LES SOCIETES REQUERANTES INVOQUENT NOTAMMENT A CE TITRE LES CIRCONSTANCES QUE LA DEMANDE DE CERTIFICATS D ' IMPORTATION A ETE PRESENTEE DANS LES TOUT PREMIERS MOIS DE L ' ADHESION DE LA REPUBLIQUE HELLENIQUE A LA COMMUNAUTE ECONOMIQUE EUROPEENNE , QU ' A CETTE EPOQUE LES REGLEMENTS RELATIFS AUX IMPORTATIONS AGRICOLES N ' ETAIENT PAS ENCORE DISPONIBLES EN LANGUE GRECQUE , QUE , POUR APPLIQUER CES REGLEMENTS , LES FONCTIONNAIRES ETAIENT OBLIGES DE TRAVAILLER SUR LA BASE DE TRADUCTIONS PROVISOIRES ET INCERTAINES A USAGE PUREMENT INTERNE , QUE LES TERMES DU FORMULAIRE SOUSCRIT PAR LES REQUERANTES NE PERMETTAIENT PAS DE CONNAITRE LA PORTEE EXACTE DE LA PREFIXATION ET QUE LE SERVICE COMPETENT DU MINISTERE DE L ' AGRICULTURE A ETE DANS L ' INCAPACITE DE LES INFORMER UTILEMENT SUR CE POINT .
16 IL CONVIENT D ' ESTIMER QUE L ' ENSEMBLE DE CES ELEMENTS DE FAIT TOUT A FAIT EXCEPTIONNELS EST CONSTITUTIF DE '  CIRCONSTANCES PARTICULIERES ' , AU SENS DE L ' ARTICLE 13 DU REGLEMENT NO 1430/79 , PRECITE .

SUR L ' ABSENCE DE NEGLIGENCE
Société coopérative des laboratoires de pharmacie Legia and Louis Gyselinx et fils - Cophalux v Minister for Health.
Date: 1986-05-27
15 IT MUST BE POINTED OUT THAT , IN A SITUATION SUCH AS THAT CONCERNED HERE , IN WHICH A SUPPLIER ESTABLISHED IN ONE MEMBER STATE DOES NOT WISH TO CARRY ON A WHOLESALE BUSINESS IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE BUT MERELY WISHES TO SUPPLY DIRECTLY AND WITHOUT INTERMEDIATE STORAGE PHARMACIES LOCATED IN THE LATTER STATE , LEGISLATION WHOSE PURPOSE OR EFFECT IS TO APPLY TO HIM THE RULES GOVERNING WHOLESALE TRADING , BY REQUIRING HIM , IN PARTICULAR , TO HAVE AT HIS DISPOSAL PREMISES IN THE IMPORTING MEMBER STATE EVEN THOUGH HE ALREADY HAS SUCH PREMISES AT HIS DISPOSAL IN THE STATE IN WHICH HIS HEADQUARTERS ARE SITUATED , RENDERS HIM LIABLE TO ADDITIONAL COSTS .
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.
Date: 1986-06-03
12 MORE PARTICULARLY , IT WAS HELD IN THE JUDGMENT OF 17 DECEMBER 1980 ( CASE 149/79 COMMISSION V KINGDOM OF BELGIUM ( 1980 ) ECR 3881 ) THAT IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER POSTS ARE POSTS IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 48 ( 4 ) OF THE TREATY , IT IS NECESSARY TO CONSIDER ' WHETHER OR NOT THE POSTS IN QUESTION ARE TYPICAL OF THE SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE IN SO FAR AS THE EXERCISE OF POWERS CONFERRED BY PUBLIC LAW AND RESPONSIBILITY FOR SAFEGUARDING THE GENERAL INTERESTS OF THE STATE ARE VESTED IN IT ' . AS THE COURT ALSO STATED IN THAT JUDGMENT , THAT INTERPRETATION - TO THE EFFECT THAT THE CRITERION FOR DETERMINING WHETHER ARTICLE 48 ( 4 ) OF THE TREATY IS APPLICABLE MUST BE FUNCTIONAL AND MUST TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE NATURE OF THE TASKS AND RESPONSIBILITIES INHERENT IN THE POST - IS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO ENSURE ' THAT THE EFFECTIVENESS AND SCOPE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY ON FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR WORKERS AND EQUALITY OF TREATMENT OF NATIONALS OF ALL MEMBER STATES SHALL NOT BE RESTRICTED BY INTERPRETATIONS OF THE CONCEPT OF PUBLIC SERVICE WHICH ARE BASED ON DOMESTIC LAW ALONE AND WHICH WOULD OBSTRUCT THE APPLICATION OF COMMUNITY RULES ' .
R. H. Kempf v Staatssecretaris van Justitie.
Date: 1986-06-03
2 THE PLAINTIFF IN THE MAIN ACTION , MR R . H . KEMPF , A GERMAN NATIONAL , ENTERED THE NETHERLANDS ON 1 SEPTEMBER 1981 AND WORKED THERE AS A PART-TIME MUSIC TEACHER GIVING 12 LESSONS A WEEK FROM 26 OCTOBER 1981 TO 14 JULY 1982 ; AT THE END OF THAT PERIOD THE GROSS WAGES HE WAS RECEIVING FOR THAT WORK AMOUNTED TO HFL 984 PER MONTH . IN THE SAME PERIOD HE APPLIED FOR AND RECEIVED SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT UNDER THE WET WERKLOOSHEIDSVOORZIENING ( LAW ON UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT ). BENEFITS UNDER THAT LAW , WHICH COME OUT OF PUBLIC FUNDS , ARE PAYABLE TO PERSONS HAVING THE STATUS OF WORKERS .
12 THERE IS , HOWEVER , NO NEED TO CONSIDER THAT QUESTION SINCE THE RAAD VAN STATE , IN THE GROUNDS OF THE JUDGMENT MAKING THE REFERENCE , EXPRESSLY FOUND THAT MR KEMPF ' S WORK WAS NOT ON SUCH A SMALL SCALE AS TO BE PURELY A MARGINAL AND ANCILLARY ACTIVITY . ACCORDING TO THE DIVISION OF JURISDICTION BETWEEN NATIONAL COURTS AND THE COURT OF JUSTICE IN CONNECTION WITH REFERENCES FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING , IT IS FOR NATIONAL COURTS TO ESTABLISH AND TO EVALUATE THE FACTS OF THE CASE . THE QUESTION SUBMITTED FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING MUST THEREFORE BE EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE RAAD VAN STATE .
13 THE COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR WORKERS FORMS ONE OF THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE COMMUNITY . THE PROVISIONS LAYING DOWN THAT FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOM AND , MORE PARTICULARLY , THE TERMS ' WORKER '  AND ' ACTIVITY AS AN EMPLOYED PERSON '  DEFINING THE SPHERE OF APPLICATION OF THOSE FREEDOMS MUST BE GIVEN A BROAD INTERPRETATION IN THAT REGARD , WHEREAS EXCEPTIONS TO AND DEROGATIONS FROM THE PRINCIPLE OF FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR WORKERS MUST BE INTERPRETED STRICTLY .
14 IT FOLLOWS THAT THE RULES ON THIS TOPIC MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT A PERSON IN EFFECTIVE AND GENUINE PART-TIME EMPLOYMENT CANNOT BE EXCLUDED FROM THEIR SPHERE OF APPLICATION MERELY BECAUSE THE REMUNERATION HE DERIVES FROM IT IS BELOW THE LEVEL OF THE MINIMUM MEANS OF SUBSISTENCE AND HE SEEKS TO SUPPLEMENT IT BY OTHER LAWFUL MEANS OF SUBSISTENCE . IN THAT REGARD IT IS IRRELEVANT WHETHER THOSE SUPPLEMENTARY MEANS OF SUBSISTENCE ARE DERIVED FROM PROPERTY OR FROM THE EMPLOYMENT OF A MEMBER OF HIS FAMILY , AS WAS THE CASE IN LEVIN , OR WHETHER , AS IN THIS INSTANCE , THEY ARE OBTAINED FROM FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE DRAWN FROM THE PUBLIC FUNDS OF THE MEMBER STATE IN WHICH HE RESIDES , PROVIDED THAT THE EFFECTIVE AND GENUINE NATURE OF HIS WORK IS ESTABLISHED .
16 FOR THOSE REASONS , IT MUST BE STATED IN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION SUBMITTED FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING THAT WHERE A NATIONAL OF A MEMBER STATE PURSUES WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE BY WAY OF EMPLOYMENT ACTIVITIES WHICH MAY IN THEMSELVES BE REGARDED AS EFFECTIVE AND GENUINE WORK , THE FACT THAT HE CLAIMS FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PAYABLE OUT OF THE PUBLIC FUNDS OF THE LATTER MEMBER STATE IN ORDER TO SUPPLEMENT THE INCOME HE RECEIVES FROM THOSE ACTIVITIES DOES NOT EXCLUDE HIM FROM THE PROVISIONS OF COMMUNITY LAW RELATING TO FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR WORKERS .
Union sidérurgique du nord et de l'est de la France (Usinor) v Commission of the European Communities.
Date: 1986-06-10
15 WITH REGARD TO THE SECOND OBJECTION OF INADMISSIBILITY , IT MUST BE BORNE IN MIND THAT , IF A REQUEST IS TO SET IN MOTION THE PROCEDURE FOR AN ACTION FOR FAILURE TO ACT UNDER ARTICLE 35 OF THE ECSC TREATY , IT MUST BE SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR AND PRECISE TO ENABLE THE COMMISSION TO ASCERTAIN IN SPECIFIC TERMS THE CONTENT OF THE DECISION WHICH IT IS BEING ASKED TO ADOPT ( SEE THE JUDGMENTS OF 6 APRIL 1962 IN JOINED CASES 21 TO 26/61 MERONI ( 1962 ) ECR 73 AND OF 8 JULY 1970 IN CASE 75/69 HAKE ( 1970 ) ECR 535 ). MOREOVER , IT MUST BE CLEAR FROM THE REQUEST THAT ITS PURPOSE IS TO COMPEL THE COMMISSION TO STATE ITS POSITION .
A. A. Ten Holder v Bestuur van de Nieuwe Algemene Bedrijfsvereniging.
Date: 1986-06-12
14 THAT SOLUTION IS NOT LIMITED AS REGARDS ITS TEMPORAL EFFECTS BY ARTICLE 13 OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 AND DOES NOT DEPEND ON WHETHER THE WORKER IS , OR WAS FOR A CERTAIN PERIOD , IN RECEIPT OF SICKNESS BENEFITS . IF THE WORKER HAS NOT TAKEN UP EMPLOYMENT IN ANOTHER MEMBER STATE , HE CONTINUES TO BE SUBJECT TO THE LEGISLATION OF THE MEMBER STATE IN WHICH HE WAS LAST EMPLOYED .
15 THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION MUST THEREFORE BE THAT ARTICLE 13 ( 2 ) ( A ) OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT A WORKER WHO CEASES TO CARRY ON AN ACTIVITY IN THE TERRITORY OF A MEMBER STATE AND WHO HAS NOT GONE TO WORK IN THE TERRITORY OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE CONTINUES TO BE SUBJECT TO THE LEGISLATION OF THE MEMBER STATE IN WHICH HE WAS LAST EMPLOYED , REGARDLESS OF THE LENGTH OF TIME WHICH HAS ELAPSED SINCE THE TERMINATION OF THE ACTIVITY IN QUESTION AND THE END OF THE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP .

SECOND QUESTION
19 IN THAT REGARD IT MUST BE BORNE IN MIND THAT , ACCORDING TO A CONSISTENT LINE OF DECISIONS OF THE COURT , THE AIM OF THE PROVISIONS OF TITLE II OF REGULATIONS NO 3/58 AND NO 1408/71 , WHICH DETERMINE THE LEGISLATION APPLICABLE TO WORKERS MOVING WITHIN THE COMMUNITY , IS TO ENSURE THAT THE PERSONS CONCERNED SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY SCHEME OF ONLY ONE MEMBER STATE , IN ORDER TO PREVENT MORE THAN ONE NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SYSTEM FROM BEING APPLICABLE AND TO AVOID THE COMPLICATIONS WHICH MAY RESULT FROM THAT SITUATION .
20 THAT PRINCIPLE , WHICH WAS APPLIED BY THE COURT IN RELATION TO REGULATION NO 3/58 , IS EXPRESSED IN ARTICLE 13 ( 1 ) OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 , WHICH PROVIDES THAT ' A WORKER TO WHOM THIS REGULATION APPLIES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE LEGISLATION OF A SINGLE MEMBER STATE ONLY '  AND THAT THAT LEGISLATION ' SHALL BE DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS TITLE ' , THAT IS TO SAY TITLE II ON ' THE DETERMINATION OF THE LEGISLATION APPLICABLE ' .
21 THE PROVISIONS OF TITLE II CONSTITUTE A COMPLETE SYSTEM OF CONFLICT RULES THE EFFECT OF WHICH IS TO DIVEST THE LEGISLATURE OF EACH MEMBER STATE OF THE POWER TO DETERMINE THE AMBIT AND THE CONDITIONS FOR THE APPLICATION OF ITS NATIONAL LEGISLATION SO FAR AS THE PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT THERETO AND THE TERRITORY WITHIN WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF NATIONAL LAW TAKE EFFECT ARE CONCERNED . AS THE COURT POINTED OUT IN ITS JUDGMENTS OF 23 SEPTEMBER 1982 IN CASE 276/81 ( KUIJPERS ( 1982 ) ECR 3027 ) AND IN CASE 275/81 ( KOKS ( 1982 ) ECR 3013 ), ' THE MEMBER STATES ARE ( NOT ) ENTITLED TO DETERMINE THE EXTENT TO WHICH THEIR OWN LEGISLATION OR THAT OF ANOTHER MEMBER STATE IS APPLICABLE '  SINCE THEY ARE ' UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF COMMUNITY LAW IN FORCE ' .
23 THE ANSWER TO THE SECOND QUESTION MUST THEREFORE BE THAT THE EFFECT OF DETERMINING THAT A GIVEN MEMBER STATE ' S LEGISLATION IS THE LEGISLATION APPLICABLE TO A WORKER PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 13 ( 2 ) ( A ) OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 IS THAT ONLY THE LEGISLATION OF THAT MEMBER STATE IS APPLICABLE TO HIM .

THIRD QUESTION
Horst Miethe v Bundesanstalt für Arbeit.
Date: 1986-06-12
10 THAT OPTION IS NOT AVAILABLE TO WHOLLY UNEMPLOYED FRONTIER WORKERS WHO , UNDER THE EXPLICIT PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 71 ( 1 ) ( A ) ( II ), ARE ENTITLED TO CLAIM BENEFITS SOLELY FROM THE MEMBER STATE IN WHICH THEY RESIDE .
12 THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION MUST THEREFORE BE THAT ARTICLE 71 ( 1 ) ( A ) ( II ) OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT A WHOLLY UNEMPLOYED FRONTIER WORKER WHO COMES WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THAT PROVISION MAY CLAIM BENEFITS ONLY FROM THE MEMBER STATE IN WHICH HE RESIDES EVEN THOUGH HE FULFILS THE CONDITIONS FOR ENTITLEMENT TO BENEFITS LAID DOWN BY THE LEGISLATION OF THE MEMBER STATE IN WHICH HE WAS LAST EMPLOYED .

SECOND QUESTION
16 IT MUST BE BORNE IN MIND THAT , AS THE COURT HAS ALREADY HELD IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 15 DECEMBER 1976 IN CASE 39/76 ( BESTUUR DER BEDRIJFSVERENIGING VOOR DE METAALNIJVERHEID V L . MOUTHAAN ( 1976 ) ECR 1901 ) AND IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 27 MAY 1982 IN CASE 227/81 ( AUBIN V UNEDIC AND ASSEDIC ( 1982 ) ECR 1991 ), ARTICLE 71 OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 IS INTENDED TO ENSURE THAT MIGRANT WORKERS RECEIVE UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT IN THE CONDITIONS MOST FAVOURABLE TO THE SEARCH FOR NEW EMPLOYMENT . THAT BENEFIT IS NOT MERELY PECUNIARY BUT INCLUDES THE ASSISTANCE IN FINDING NEW EMPLOYMENT WHICH THE EMPLOYMENT SERVICES PROVIDE FOR WORKERS WHO HAVE MADE THEMSELVES AVAILABLE TO THEM .
17 THAT BEING SO , IT MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE RULE IN ARTICLE 71 ( 1 ) ( A ) ( II ), TO THE EFFECT THAT A WHOLLY UNEMPLOYED FRONTIER WORKER COMING WITHIN THE DEFINITION IN ARTICLE 1 ( B ) IS ENTITLED TO BENEFITS SOLELY IN THE MEMBER STATE IN WHICH HE RESIDES , WAS BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT SUCH A WORKER WOULD FIND IN THAT STATE THE CONDITIONS MOST FAVOURABLE TO THE SEARCH FOR NEW EMPLOYMENT .
18 HOWEVER , THE OBJECTIVE PURSUED BY ARTICLE 71 ( 1 ) ( A ) ( II ) OF REGULATION NO 1408/71 CANNOT BE ACHIEVED WHERE A WHOLLY UNEMPLOYED WORKER , ALTHOUGH HE SATISFIES THE CRITERIA LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 1 ( B ) OF THAT REGULATION , HAS IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES MAINTAINED IN THE MEMBER STATE IN WHICH HE WAS LAST EMPLOYED PERSONAL AND BUSINESS LINKS OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO GIVE HIM A BETTER CHANCE OF FINDING NEW EMPLOYMENT THERE . SUCH A WORKER MUST THEREFORE BE REGARDED AS A WORKER ' OTHER THAN A FRONTIER WORKER '  WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 71 AND CONSEQUENTLY COMES WITHIN THE SCOPE OF ARTICLE 71 ( 1 ) ( B ).
Bernhard Schloh v Auto contrôle technique SPRL.
Date: 1986-06-12
13 NEVERTHELESS , ARTICLE 36 MAY JUSTIFY SUCH A FORMALITY ON GROUNDS OF THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND LIFE , PROVIDED THAT IT IS ESTABLISHED , FIRST , THAT THE TEST AT ISSUE IS NECESSARY FOR THE ATTAINMENT OF THAT OBJECTIVE AND , SECONDLY , THAT IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A MEANS OF ARBITRARY DISCRIMINATION OR A DISGUISED RESTRICTION ON TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES .
14 AS FAR AS THE FIRST CONDITION IS CONCERNED , IT MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT ROADWORTHINESS TESTING REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE REGISTRATION OF AN IMPORTED VEHICLE MAY , EVEN THOUGH THE VEHICLE CARRIES A CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY TO THE VEHICLE TYPES APPROVED IN THE IMPORTING MEMBER STATE , BE REGARDED AS NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND LIFE WHERE THE VEHICLE IN QUESTION HAS ALREADY BEEN PUT ON THE ROAD . IN SUCH CASES ROADWORTHINESS TESTING PERFORMS A USEFUL FUNCTION INASMUCH AS IT MAKES IT POSSIBLE TO CHECK THAT THE VEHICLE HAS NOT BEEN DAMAGED AND IS IN A GOOD STATE OF REPAIR . HOWEVER , SUCH TESTING CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED ON THOSE GROUNDS WHERE IT RELATES TO AN IMPORTED VEHICLE CARRYING A CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PLACED ON THE ROAD BEFORE BEING REGISTERED IN THE IMPORTING MEMBER STATE .
15 AS FAR AS THE SECOND CONDITION IS CONCERNED , IT MUST BE STATED THAT THE ROADWORTHINESS TESTING OF IMPORTED VEHICLES CANNOT , HOWEVER , BE JUSTIFIED UNDER THE SECOND SENTENCE OF ARTICLE 36 OF THE TREATY IF IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT SUCH TESTING IS NOT REQUIRED IN THE CASE OF VEHICLES OF NATIONAL ORIGIN PRESENTED FOR REGISTRATION IN THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES . IF THAT WERE THE CASE IT WOULD BECOME APPARENT THAT THE MEASURE IN QUESTION WAS NOT IN FACT INSPIRED BY A CONCERN FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND LIFE BUT IN REALITY CONSTITUTED A MEANS OF ARBITRARY DISCRIMINATION IN TRADE BETWEEN MEMBER STATES . IT IS FOR THE NATIONAL COURT TO VERIFY THAT SUCH NON-DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT IS IN FACT ENSURED .
16 IT MUST THEREFORE BE STATED IN REPLY TO THE JUGE DE PAIX OF SCHAERBEEK THAT ARTICLE 30 OF THE TREATY MUST BE INTERPRETED AS MEANING THAT A NATIONAL MEASURE WHICH REQUIRES A ROADWORTHINESS TEST FOR THE PURPOSE OF REGISTERING AN IMPORTED VEHICLE CARRYING A CERTIFICATE OF ITS CONFORMITY TO THE VEHICLE TYPES APPROVED IN THE IMPORTING MEMBER STATE CONSTITUTES A MEASURE HAVING AN EFFECT EQUIVALENT TO A QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTION ON IMPORTS . NEVERTHELESS , SUCH A MEASURE IS JUSTIFIED UNDER ARTICLE 36 OF THE TREATY IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO VEHICLES PUT ON THE ROAD BEFORE SUCH REGISTRATION AND APPLIES WITHOUT DISTINCTION TO VEHICLES OF NATIONAL ORIGIN AND IMPORTED VEHICLES .

THE SECOND ROADWORTHINESS TEST
Michele Bertini and Giuseppe Bisignani and others v Regione Lazio and Unità sanitarie locali.
Date: 1986-06-12
6 AS FAR AS THAT POINT IS CONCERNED , IT SHOULD FIRST BE RECALLED THAT IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 16 DECEMBER 1981 , CITED ABOVE , THE COURT STATED THAT IN ORDER THAT IT MAY PERFORM ITS TASKS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TREATY IT IS ESSENTIAL FOR NATIONAL COURTS TO EXPLAIN , WHEN THE REASONS ARE NOT CLEAR FROM THE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE , WHY THEY CONSIDER THAT A REPLY TO THEIR QUESTIONS IS NECESSARY TO ENABLE THEM TO GIVE JUDGMENT .