Loading article preview...

• See other documents that cite the same legislation

Selección de jurisprudencia del TJCE

1. Caso Sotgiu (STJCE de 12 de febrero de 1974, Giovanni Maria Sotgiu/Deutsche Bundespost, asunto 152/73, Rec. 1974, p. 153).

(...)

* El presente Anexo reproduce únicamente, tal y como aparece publicada en la "Recopilación de la Jurisprudencia del Tribunal" (a partir de 1986, "Recopilación de la Jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia y del Tribunal de Primera Instancia"), la versión española de los Antecedentes de hecho y Fundamentos de Derecho de las principales sentencias relacionadas con la presente obra. Quedan, por tanto, excluidas las Conclusiones del Abogado General y, en su caso, el Informe para la vista, así como los encabezamientos, pronunciamientos sobre costas, fallos y firmas de las referidas sentencias, cuyo texto íntegro puede consultarse en la citada Recopilación. Dada la inexistencia de versión oficial española de la sentencia Sot-

1. By Order of 28 March 1973, received at the Court Registry on 20 July 1973, the Bundesarbeitsgericht, in pursuance of Article 177 of the EEC Treaty, asked three questions relating to the interpretation of Article 48 (4) of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community and Article 7 (1) and (4) of Regulation No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ 1968, L 257, p. 2).

These questions were raised within the framework of an action brought against the Federal Post Office by an Italian national employed as a worker by the above organization regarding the payment of a "separation allowance" which is granted on certain conditions to workers allocated to posts away from their place of residence.

On the first question

2. The first question asks whether, having regard to the exception provided for in Article 48 (4) of the EEC Treaty, workers employed in the public service of a Member State -in this case the postal service- by virtue of a contract of employment under private law, may be excluded from the rule of non-discrimination set out in Article 7 (1) and (4) of Regulation No 1612/68.

3. Article 48 of the Treaty secures freedom of movement for workers within the Community and to this end provides in paragraph (2) for "the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment".

Article 7 (1) of Regulation No 1612/68 stipulates in this respect that: "A worker who is a national of a Member State may not, in the territory of another Member State, be treated differently from national workers by reason of his nationality in respect of any conditions of employment and work, in particular as regards remuneration...".

Paragraph (4) of the same Article reads: "Anuy clause of a collective or individual agreement or of any other collective regulation concerning eligibility for employment, remuneration and other conditions of work or dismissal shall be null and void in so far as it lays down or authorizes discriminatory conditions in respect of workers who are nationals of the other Member States."

By virtue of Article 48 (4) of the Treaty, however, these provisions are not applicable to "employment in the public service".

The extent of this exception must therefore be defined.

4. Taking account of the fundamental nature, in the scheme of the Treaty, of the principles of freedom of movement and equality of treatment of workers within the Community, the exceptions made by Article 48 (4) cannot have a scope going beyond the aim in view of which this derogation was included.

The interests which this derogation allows Member States to protect are satisfied by the opportunity of restricting admission of foreign nationals to certain activities in the public service.

On the other hand this provision cannot justify discriminatory measures with regard to remuneration or other conditions of employment against workers once they have been admitted to the public service.

The very fact that they have been admitted shows indeed that those interests which justify the exceptions to the principle of non-discrimination permitted by Article 48 (4) are not at issue.

5. It is necessary establish further whether the extent of the exception provided for by Article 48 (4) can be determined in terms of the designation of the legal relationship between the employee and the enploying administration.

In the absence of any distinction in the provision referred to, it is of no interest whether a worker is engaged as a workman [ouvrier], a clerk [employé] or an official [fonctionnaire] or even whether the terms on which he is employed come under public or private law.

These legal designations can be varied at the whim of national legislatures and cannot therefore provide a criterion for interpretation appropriate to the requirements of Community law.

6. The answer the question put to the Court should therefore be that Arti- cle 48 (4) of the Treaty is to be interpreted as meaning that the exceptio...

If you are already a vLex customer, Access Here

La no discriminación fiscal - (January 01, 2001)

La extensión jurisprudencial de la no discriminación fiscal al ámbito de la fiscalidad directa

Jesús Santa-Bárbara Rupérez - Doctor en Derecho

I. La armonización de la fiscalidad directa: consideraciones generales.-II. no discriminación y libre circulación de personas: A. No discriminación fiscal y libre circulación de trabajadores: 1. Lo...

Fiscalidad internacional de rentas financieras - (January 01, 2001)

Sentencias y doctrina administrativa

Manuel Lucas Durán - Profesor Titular Interino de Derecho Financiero y Tributario Universidad de Alcalá

BOE. Boletín Oficial del Estado, March 28, 2007 Nbr. 75

Orden FOM/734/2007, de 20 de marzo, por la que se desarrolla el Reglamento de la Ley de Ordenación de los Transportes Terrestres en materia de autorizaciones de transporte de mercancías por carretera.

Formularios Procedimiento Administrativo - (January 01, 2009)

Solicitud de devolución de ingresos indebidos