I – Introduction

I – Introduzzjoni

1. The present reference for a preliminary ruling, lodged by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Administrative Court) Austria, concerns the interpretation of the Protocol concerning the conditions and arrangements for admission of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union (2) (‘the Protocol’), in particular Article 20 and point 1 of paragraph 14 of its Annex VI, entitled ‘List referred to in Article 20 of the Protocol: transitional measures, Bulgaria’, and of Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third‑country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service. (3)

1. It-talba għal deċiżjoni preliminari mressqa mill-Verwaltungsgerichtshof (l-Awstrija), tikkonċerna l-interpretazzjoni tal-Protokoll dwar il-kondizzjonijiet u l-arranġamenti għall-ammissjoni tar-Repubblika tal-Bulgarija u tar-Rumanija fl-Unjoni Ewropea (2) (iktar ’il quddiem il-“Protokoll”), b’mod partikolari l-Artikolu 20 tiegħu u tal-punt 1(14) tal-Anness VI tiegħu, intitolat “Lista msemmija fl-Artikolu 20 tal-Protokoll: miżuri transitorji, Bulgarija”, kif ukoll tad-Direttiva tal-Kunsill 2004/114/KE, tat-13 ta’ Diċembru 2004, dwar il-kondizzjonijiet ta’ ammissjoni ta’ ċittadini ta’ pajjiżi terzi għal skopijiet ta’ studju, skambju ta’ studenti, taħriġ bla ħlas jew servizz volontarju (3) .

2. The reference has been made in the context of a dispute between Mr Sommer and the Landesgeschäftsstelle des Arbeitsmarktservice Wien (Regional Agency of the Department of Employment, Vienna, ‘Employment Office’) concerning the latter’s refusal to issue a work permit, at Mr Sommer’s request, to a Bulgarian national studying in Austria, who wishes to work as a part‑time driver there.

2. Din it-talba ġiet ippreżentata fil-kuntest ta’ kawża bejn L. Sommer u l-Landesgeschäftsstelle des Arbeitsmarktservice Wien (aġenzija reġjonali tal-uffiċċju tax-xogħol u tal-impjieg ta’ Vjenna; iktar ’il quddiem l-“Arbeitsmarktservice”) dwar ir-rifjut ta’ din tal-aħħar li tagħti permess ta’ xogħol, mitlub minn L. Summer, lil ċittadin Bulgaru li kien student fl-Awstrija u li xtaq jaħdem bħala xufier part-time.

3. The questions referred to the Court seek a ruling on the factors to be taken into account in assessing the ‘standstill’ obligation provided for in paragraph 14 of Annex VI, point 1, of the Protocol, and also the effect of the principle of preference for Union citizens, set out in the same paragraph, on the legal situation of Bulgarian students during the transitional period laid down in the first subparagraph of paragraph 2 of Annex VI, point 1, of the Protocol. In that context, the present reference will also enable the Court to give a ruling on the admissibility of the measures adopted by the Member States to regulate the access of Bulgarian nationals to their employment market while those measures apply.

3. Id-domandi magħmula lill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja jitolbuha tiddeċiedi fuq l-elementi li għandhom jittieħdu inkunsiderazzjoni fl-evalwazzjoni tal-obbligu ta’ “standstill” previst fil-punt 1(14) tal-Anness VI tal-Protokoll, kif ukoll fuq l-effett tal-prinċipju ta’ preferenza għaċ-ċittadini tal-Unjoni, stabbilit fl-istess paragrafu, fuq is-sitwazzjoni legali ta’ studenti Bulgari matul il-perijodu transitorju msemmi fl-ewwel subparagrafu tal-punt 1(2) tal-Anness VI ta’ dan il-protokoll. F’dan il-kuntest, dan ir-rinviju għal deċiżjoni preliminari ser jippermetti wkoll lill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja li tesprimi ruħha fuq l-ammissibbiltà tal-miżuri adottati mill-Istati Membri bil-għan li jirregolaw l-aċċess taċ-ċittadini tal-Bulgarija fis-suq tax-xogħol tagħhom matul il-perijodu ta’ applikazzjoni ta’ dawn il-miżuri.

II – The legal context

II – Il-kuntest ġuridiku

A – Union law

A – Id-dritt tal-Unjoni

1. The Protocol and Annex VI

1. Il-Protokoll u l-Anness VI tiegħu

4. The Treaty of Accession was signed on 25 April 2005 and entered into force on 1 January 2007 (‘the accession date’).

4. It-Trattat ta’ Adeżjoni ġie ffirmat fil-25 ta’ April 2005, u daħal fis-seħħ fl-1 ta’ Jannar 2007 (iktar ’il quddiem id-“data ta’ Adeżjoni”).

5. Article 1(3) of the Treaty of Accession provides that ‘the conditions and arrangements for admission are set out in the Protocol annexed to this Treaty. The provisions of that Protocol shall form an integral part of this Treaty’.

5. Skont l-Artikolu 1(3) tat-Trattat ta’ Adeżjoni, “[i]l-kondizzjonijiet u l-arranġamenti għall-ammissjoni qegħdin jiġu stabbiliti fil-Protokoll anness ma’ dan it-Trattat. Id-dispożizzjonijiet ta’ dak il-Protokoll għandhom jagħmlu parti integrali minn dan it-Trattat”.

6. Article 20 of the Protocol relates to temporary provisions and provides, inter alia, that the measures listed in Annex VI of the Protocol apply in respect of the Republic of Bulgaria under the conditions laid down in that Annex.

6. L-Artikolu 20 tal-Protokoll, intiż għal miżuri transitorji, jipprovdi, fost oħrajn, li l-miżuri msemmija fl-Anness VI tal-imsemmi Protokoll huma applikabbli għar-Repubblika tal-Bulgarija taħt il-kundizzjonijiet stabbiliti f’dan l-anness.

7. The first subparagraph of paragraph 2 of Annex VI, point 1, of the Protocol provides that, by way of derogation from Articles 1 to 6 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community, (4) and until the end of the two-year period following the date of accession (thus until 1 January 2009), the present Member States will apply national measures, or those resulting from bilateral agreements, regulating access to their labour markets by Bulgarian nationals. The present Member States may continue to apply such measures until the end of the five-year period following the date of accession

7. L-ewwel paragrafu tal-punt 1(2) tal-Anness VI tal-Protokoll jipprovdi li, b’deroga mill-Artikoli 1 sa 6 tar-Regolament tal-Kunsill (KEE) Nru 1612/68, tal-15 ta’ Ottubru 1968, dwar il-libertà tal-moviment għall-ħaddiema fi ħdan il-Komunità (4), l-Istati Membri attwali sejrin japplikaw, sa tmiem il-perijodu ta’ sentejn wara d-data ta’ Adeżjoni (għalhekk sal-1 ta’ Jannar 2009), miżuri nazzjonali, jew dawk li jirriżultaw minn xi ftehim bilaterali, sabiex jirregolaw l-aċċess għas-swieq tax-xogħol tagħhom minn ċittadini Bulgari. L-Istati Membri attwali jistgħu jkomplu japplikaw tali miżuri sa tmiem il-perijodu ta’ ħames snin wara d-data ta’ Adeżjoni.

8. Paragraph 14 of Annex VI, point 1, of the Protocol is worded as follows:

8. Il-punt 1(14) tal-Anness VI tal-Protokoll huwa fformulat hekk:

‘The effect of the application of paragraphs 2 to 5 and 7 to 12 shall not result in conditions for access of Bulgarian nationals to the labour markets of the present Member States which are more restrictive than those prevailing on the date of signature of the Treaty of Accession.

“L-effett ta’ l-applikazzjoni tal-paragrafi 2 sa 5 u 7 sa 12 ma għandux jirriżulta f’kondizzjonijiet, għal cittadini tal-Bulgarija, ta’ aċċess iktar restrittivi għas-swieq tax-xogħol ta’ l-Istati Membri attwali minn dawk li jkunu fis-seħħ fid-data ta’ l-iffirmar tat-Trattat ta’ l-Adeżjoni.

Notwithstanding the application of the provisions laid down in paragraphs 1 to 13, the present Member States shall, during any period when national measures or those resulting from bilateral agreements are applied, give preference to workers who are nationals of the Member States over workers who are nationals of third countries as regards access to their labour market.

Minkejja l-applikazzjoni tad-disposizzjonijiet stabbiliti fil-paragrafi 1 sa 13, l-Istati Membri attwali għandhom, matul kwalunkwe perjodu li fih jiġu applikati miżuri nazzjonali jew miżuri li joħorġu minn xi ftehim bilaterali, jagħtu preferenza lil ħaddiema ċittadini ta’ l-Istati Membri vis-à-vis ħaddiema ċittadini ta’ pajjiżi terzi fir-rigward ta’ l-aċċess għas-suq tax-xogħol tagħhom.

Bulgarian migrant workers and their families legally resident and working in another Member State or migrant workers from other Member States and their families legally resident and working in Bulgaria shall not be treated in a more restrictive way than those from third countries resident and working in that Member State or Bulgaria respectively. Furthermore, in application of the principle of Community preference, migrant workers from third countries resident and working in Bulgaria shall not be treated more favourably than nationals of Bulgaria.’

Ħaddiema migranti Bulgari u l-familji tagħhom li jirrisjedu u jaħdmu legalment fi Stat Membru ieħor jew ħaddiema migranti minn Stati Membri oħra u l-familji tagħhom li jirrisjedu u jaħdmu legalment fil-Bulgarija ma għandhomx jiġu trattati b’mod iktar restrittiv minn dawk il-persuni minn pajjiżi terzi li jirrisjedu u jaħdmu f’dak l-Istat Membru jew fil-Bulgarija rispettivament. Barra minn hekk, fl-applikazzjoni tal-prinċipju ta’ preferenza Komunitarja, ħaddiema migranti minn pajjiżi terzi li jirrisjedu u jaħdmu fil-Bulgarija ma għandhomx jiġu trattati aħjar minn ċittadini tal-Bulgarija.”

2. Directive 2004/114

2. Id-Direttiva 2004/114

9. Directive 2004/114 entered into force on 12 January 2005. The transposition period for the directive expired on 12 January 2007, in accordance with Article 22.

9. Id-Direttiva 2004/114 daħlet fis-seħħ fit-12 ta’ Jannar 2005. Skont l-Artikolu 22 tagħha, il-perijodu ta’ traspożizzjoni skada fit-12 ta’ Jannar 2007.

10. Recital (6) to the Directive states that ‘one of the objectives of Community action in the field of education is to promote Europe as a whole as a world centre of excellence for studies and vocational training. Promoting the mobility of third-country nationals to the Community for the purpose of studies is a key factor in that strategy. The approximation of the Member States’ national legislation on conditions of entry and residence is part of this’.

10. Il-premessa 6 ta’ din id-direttiva tiddikjara li “[w]ieħed mill-għanijiet ta’ l-azzjoni Komunitarja fil-qasam ta’ l-edukazzjoni hu li jippromwovi l-Ewropa fl-intier tagħha bħala ċentru dinji ta’ eċċellenza għall-istudju u t-taħriġ vokazzjonali. Il-promozzjoni tal-mobilità ta’ ċittadini ta’ pajjiżi terzi lejn il-Komunita’ għal skopijiet ta’ studju huwa fattur ewlieni f’dik l-istrateġija. L-approssimazzjoni tal-leġiżlazzjoni nazzjonali ta’ l-Istati Membri dwar il-kondizzjonijiet ta’ dħul u residenza hija parti minn dan”.

11. According to recital (7) of the same directive, ‘migration for the purposes set out in this Directive, which is by definition temporary and does not depend on the labour-market situation in the host country, constitutes a form of mutual enrichment for the migrants concerned, their country of origin and the host Member State and helps to promote better familiarity among cultures’.

11. Skont il-premessa 7 tal-istess direttiva, “[i]l-migrazzjoni għall-għanijiet stabbiliti f’din id-Direttiva, li minnha nfisha hija temporanja u ma tiddependix fuq is-sitwazzjoni tas-suq tax-xogħol ta’ l-Istat Membru ospitanti, tikkostitwixxi għamla ta’ arrikkiment reċiproku għall-immigranti konċernati, il-pajjiż ta’ l-oriġni tagħhom u l-Istat Membru ospitanti u tgħin biex tippromwovi familjarità aħjar bejn il-kulturi”.

12. With regard to the economic activity of students, recital (8) of the directive states that ‘in order to allow students who are third-country nationals to cover part of the cost of their studies, they should be given access to the labour market under the conditions set out in this Directive. The principle of access for students to the labour market under the conditions set out in this Directive should be a general rule; however, in exceptional circumstances Member States should be able to take into account the situation of their national labour markets’.

12. F’dak li jikkonċerna l-attivitajiet ekonomiċi tal-istudenti, il-premessa 18 tindika li “[s]abiex l-istudenti li huma ċittadini ta’ pajjiżi terzi jitħallew ikopru parti mill-ispejjeż ta’ l-istudji tagħhom għandhom jingħataw aċċess għas-suq tax-xogħol, taħt il-kondizzjonijiet stabbiliti f’din id-Direttiva. Il-prinċipju ta’ aċċess għall-istudenti għas-suq tax-xogħol, taħt il-kondizzjonijiet ta’ din id-Direttiva, għand[u] jkun regola ġenerali, iżda, f’ċirkustanzi eċċezzjonali, l-Istati Membri għandhom jkollhom il-possibbiltà li jieħdu kont tas-sitwazzjoni tas-swieq tax-xogħol nazzjonali tagħhom”.

13. Article 1 of Directive 2004/114 provides as follows:

13. L-Artikolu 1 tad-Direttiva 2004/114 jipprovdi:

‘The purpose of this Directive is to determine:

“ L-għan ta’ din id-Direttiva hu li tiddetermina:

(a) the conditions for admission of third‑country nationals to the territory of the Member States for a period exceeding three months for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service;

a) il-kondizzjonijiet ta’ ammissjoni ta’ ċittadini ta’ pajjiżi terzi fit-territorju ta’ l-Istati Membri għal perijodu ta’ iktar minn tliet xhur għall-fini ta’ studju, skambju ta’ studenti, taħriġ mingħajr ħlas jew servizz volontarju;

(b) the rules concerning the procedures for admitting third-country nationals to the territory of the Member States for those purposes.’

b) ir-regoli dwar il-proċeduri għal ammissjoni ta’ ċittadini ta’ pajjiżi terzi fit-territorju ta’ l-Istati Membri għal dawk il-finijiet.”

14. Article 2(a) of the Directive defines ‘third‑country national’ as ‘any person who is not a citizen of the European Union within the meaning of Article 17(1) of the Treaty’.

14. Skont l-Artikolu 2(1)(a) ta’ din id-direttiva, il-kunċett ta’ “ċittadin ta’ pajjiżi terzi” ifisser “kwalunkwe persuna li mhix ċittadin ta’ l-Unjoni Ewropea fis-sens tat-tifsira ta’ l-Artikolu 17(1) tat-Trattat”.

15. Chapter IV of the directive, headed ‘Treatment of the third‑country nationals concerned’, includes Article 17, which is headed ‘Economic activities by students’ and provides as follows:

15. Taħt it-titolu “Attivitajiet ekonomiċi minn studenti”, l-Artikolu 17 ta’ din id-direttiva, li jinsab fil-Kapitolu IV, imsejjaħ “Trattament taċ-ċittadini ta’ pajjiżi terzi konċernati”, jipprovdi dan li ġej:

‘1. Outside their study time and subject to the rules and conditions applicable to the relevant activity in the host Member State, students shall be entitled to be employed and may be entitled to exercise self‑employed economic activity. The situation of the labour market in the host Member State may be taken into account.

“1. Barra mill-ħin ta’ studju tagħhom u bla ħsara għar-regoli u l-kondizzjonijiet applikabbli għall-attività rilevanti fl-Istat Membru ospitanti, l-istudenti għandhom ikunu ntitolati li jeżerċitaw attivita ekonomika bħala persuni impjegati u jistgħu jkunu ntitolati jeżerċitaw attività ekonomika bħala persuni li jaħdmu għal rashom. Is-sitwazzjoni tas-suq tax-xogħol fl-Istat Membru msemmi tista tittieħed in konsiderazzjoni.

Where necessary, Member States shall grant students and/or employers prior authorisation in accordance with national legislation.

Fejn jeħtieġ, Stati Membri għandhom jagħtu lill-istudenti u/jew lil dawk li jimpjegaw awtorizzazzjoni minn qabel skond il-leġislazzjoni nazzjonali.

2. Each Member State shall determine the maximum number of hours per week or days or months per year allowed for such an activity, which shall not be less than 10 hours per week, or the equivalent in days or months per year.

Kull Stat Membru għandu jiddetermina n-numru massimu ta’ sigħat fil-ġimgħa jew ġranet jew xhur fis-sena permessi għal tali attività ekonomika, li m’għandhomx ikunu inqas minn 10 sigħat fil-ġimgħa, jew l-ekwivalenti fi ġranet jew xhur fis-sena.

3. Access to economic activities for the first year of residence may be restricted by the host Member State

Aċċess għal attivitajiet ekonomiċi għall-ewwel sena ta’ residenza jistgħu jiġu ristretti mill-Istat Membru li jospita.

4. Member States may require students to report, in advance or otherwise, to an authority designated by the Member State concerned, that they are engaging in an economic activity. Their employers may also be subject to a reporting obligation, in advance or otherwise.’

Stati Membri jistgħu jeħtieġu li studenti jirrapportaw, minn qabel jew mod ieħor, lill-awtorità magħżula mill-Istat Membru konċernat, li huma involuti f’attività ekonomika. Min jimpjegahom jista’ wkoll ikun soġġett għal obbligu li jirrapporta, minn qabel jew mod ieħor.”

B – National law

A – Id-dritt nazzjonali

16. Under Paragraph 64(2) of the Niederlassungs‑ und Aufenthaltsgesetz (Law on establishment and residence, NAG), (5) residence permits issued to foreign students also cover economic activity as an employed person, provided that such activity is without prejudice to the requirement of studies as the sole purpose of residence.

16. Skont l-Artikolu 64(2) tal-Liġi dwar l-istabbiliment u r-residenza (Niederlassungs- und Aufenthaltsgesetz) (5), il-permess ta’ residenza maħruġ lil studenti barranin jinkludi wkoll l–eżerċizzju ta’ attività bħala persuna impjegata, sakemm dik l-attività ma tippreġudikax l-istudji, li jkunu r-raġuni tar-residenza.

17. Work permits are granted in accordance with the provisions of the Ausländerbeschäftigungsgesetz (Law on the employment of foreign nationals, ‘AuslBG’), (6) Paragraph 4 of which is headed ‘Work permit conditions’ and provides as follows:

17. Il-permess ta’ xogħol huwa mogħti skont id-dispożizzjonijiet tal-Liġi dwar l-impjieg tal-barranin (Ausländerbeschätigungsgesetz, iktar ’il quddiem l-“AuslBG”) (6) . L-Artikolu 4 ta’ din il-liġi, imsejjaħ “Kundizzjonijiet tal-permess ta’ xogħol”, jiddisponi fil-paragrafu 1 tiegħu:

‘The work permit shall be granted, unless otherwise provided hereinafter, if the situation of and developments in the labour market permit employment and it is not precluded by important public or macroeconomic interests.’

“Bla ħsara għal dispożizzjonijiet f’sens kuntrarju, permess ta’ xogħol jinħareġ meta s-sitwazzjoni u l-iżvilupp tas-suq tax-xogħol jippermettu l-impjieg u meta l-interess pubbliku jew ekonomiku superjuri ma jopponux li jsir dan.”

18. Paragraph 4(6) of the AuslBG regulates situations where the fixed maximum number of foreigners employed for the regions under Paragraph 13 of that Law is exceeded. In that situation, further work permits may be issued only on certain conditions which are set out in Paragraph 13.

18. L-Artikolu 4(6) tal-AuslBG jirregola s-sitwazzjonijiet li fihom ġie rreġistrat in-numru massimu ta’ barranin impjegati mil- Länder konformement mal-Artikolu 13 ta’ din il-liġi ikun inqabeż. F’każijiet bħal dawn, ma jistgħux jinħarġu permessi tax-xogħol ġodda ħlief taħt ċerti kundizzjonijiet li jissemmew f’dan l-artikolu.

19. Subparagraph (1) of Paragraph 4b of the AuslBG, which is headed ‘Examination of the situation in the labour market’, provides as follows:

19. L-Artikolu 4 b tal-AuslBG, imsejjaħ “Eżami tas-sitwazzjoni tas-suq tax-xogħol”, jipprovdi dan li ġej fil-paragrafu 1 tiegħu:

‘The situation of and developments in the labour market (Paragraph 4(1)) shall permit the grant of a work permit if neither an Austrian national nor a foreign national available on the labour market who is willing and able to carry out the job applied for under lawful conditions is available for the vacant position to be filled by the foreign national in respect of whom the application is made. Among the available foreign nationals preference shall be given to those who are entitled to unemployment benefits, who hold an authorisation to work, an exemption certificate or a permanent residence permit, EEA citizens (Paragraph 2(6)) and Turkish workers covered by the Association Agreement with Turkey …’

“Is-sitwazzjoni u l-iżvilupp tas-suq tax-xogħol [Artikolu 4(1)] li jippermettu li jinħareġ permess ta’ xogħol meta l-pożizzjoni vakanti ta’ impjieg li jixtieq jokkupa l-barrani li hija s-suġġett tat-talba ma tistax timtela minn ċittadin Awstrijak jew minn barrani disponibbli fis-suq tax-xogħol li huwa lest u kapaċi jeżerċita x-xogħol inkwistjoni bil-kundizzjonijiet awtorizzati mil-liġi. Fost il-barranin disponibbli, għandha tingħata preferenza lil dawk li huma intitolati għall-benefiċċji taħt l-assigurazzjoni tal-qgħad, dawk li jkollhom permess ta’ xogħol, eżenzjoni minn permess ta’ xogħol jew ċertifikat ta’ stabbiliment kif ukoll iċ-ċittadini taż-ŻEE [Artikolu 2(6)] u l-ħaddiema taħt il-Ftehim ta’ Assoċjazzjoni mat-Turkija […]”.

III – The main proceedings, the questions referred and the procedure before the Court

III – Il-kawża prinċipali, id-domandi preliminari u l-proċedura quddiem il-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja

20. On 30 January 2008 Mr Sommer, the applicant in the main proceedings, applied for a work permit to be issued to a Bulgarian national, a student, who had already resided in Austria for more than one year and whom he wished to employ as a driver for making night‑time deliveries in Vienna at short notice. The application was refused by decision of the Arbeitsmarktservice of 8 February 2008 on the basis of Paragraph 4(6), point 1, of the AuslBG.

20. L. Sommer, ir-rikorrent fil-kawża prinċipali, kien talab, fit-30 ta’ Jannar 2008, il-ħruġ ta’ permess ta’ xogħol għal student li huwa ċittadin Bulgaru, li kien ilu residenti għal iktar minn sena fl-Awstrija, bil-għan li jimpjegah bħala xufier ta’ trakk sabiex jagħmel kunsinni ta’ malajr billejl fi Vjenna. Din it-talba ġiet miċħuda b’deċiżjoni tal-Arbeitsmarktservice tat-8 ta’ Frar 2008 abbażi tal-punt 1 tal-Artikolu 4(6) tal-AuslBG.

21. Mr Sommer appealed against the decision to the Arbeitsmarktservice which, by decision of 17 March 2008, rejected the appeal, referring once again to Paragraph 4(6) of the AuslBG, on the ground that the maximum number of foreign workers fixed for the Vienna region had already been exceeded and that the additional conditions laid down by that provision were not fulfilled. Mr Sommer instituted proceedings against that decision before the referring court.

21. L. Sommer ressaq ilment kontra din id-deċiżjoni quddiem l-Arbeitsmarktservice li, b’deċiżjoni tas-17 ta’ Marzu 2008, ma aċċettatx dan l-ilment billi mill-ġdid irreferiet b’mod partikolari għall-Artikolu 4(6) tal-AuslBG, għar-raġuni li n-numru massimu ta’ ħaddiema barranin stabbilit mil-Land ta’ Vjenna kien diġà nqabeż u li l-kundizzjonijiet supplimentari previsti minn din id-dispożizzjoni ma kinux ġew issodisfatti. L. Sommer ippreżenta rikors kontra din id-deċiżjoni quddiem il-qorti tar-rinviju.

22. According to the referring court, literal interpretation of the combined provisions of Articles 1(a) and 2(a) of Directive 2004/114 shows that a Bulgarian national is not within the scope of Directive 2004/114 because, by reason of Bulgaria’s accession to the Union on 1 January 2007, he is no longer ‘a third‑country national’ within the meaning of the directive. On that point, the referring court is uncertain as to the effects of Bulgaria’s accession on the situation of a Bulgarian student. To be exact, the referring court wishes to know whether the change in status described above could adversely affect the legal situation of a Bulgarian student or entail less favourable treatment than that of third-country students, which would be contrary to paragraph 14 of Annex VI, point 1, of the Protocol.

22. Skont il-qorti tar-rinviju, jirriżulta minn interpretazzjoni letterali tad-dispożizzjonijiet magħquda tal-Artikoli 1(a) u 2(a) tad-Direttiva 2004/114, li ċittadin Bulgaru ma jaqax taħt il-kamp ta’ applikazzjoni ta’ din id-direttiva, peress li huwa ma huwiex iktar, wara l-adeżjoni tar-Repubblika tal-Bulgarija fl-Unjoni fl-1 ta’ Jannar 2007, “ċittadin ta’ pajjiż terz” fit-tifsira tagħha. Fid-dawl ta’ dan, hija ssaqsi b’mod partikolari dwar l-effetti ta’ Adeżjoni tar-Repubblika tal-Bulgarija fuq is-sitwa zzjoni ta’ student Bulgaru. Speċifikament, hija tistaqsi jekk il-bidla tal-istatus deskritt iktar ’il fuq tistax jinvolvi deterjorament tas-sitwazzjoni legali ta’ student Bulgaru jew ta’ trattament inqas favorevoli meta pparagunat ma’ studenti ta’ pajjiżi terzi, ħaġa li tkun kuntrarja għad-dispożizzjonijiet tal-punt 1(14)_tal-Anness VI tal-Protokoll.

23. The referring court, however, observes that the issue of a work permit is, by virtue of Paragraph 4(1) of the AuslBG, subject to examination of, first, the situation of and developments in the labour market and, secondly, important public or macroeconomic interests which may preclude the recruitment of such a worker.

23. Il-qorti tar-rinviju ssostni wkoll li l-ħrug ta’ permess ta’ xogħol huwa suġġett, skont l-Artikolu 4(1) tal-AuslBG, għall-eżami, minn naħa, tas-sitwazzjoni u l-iżvilupp tas-suq tax-xogħol u, min-naħa l-oħra, tal-interessi pubbliċi jew ekonomiċi superjuri li jistgħu jipprekludu l-impjieg ta’ tali ħaddiem.

24. Against that background, by decision of 9 December 2010, the Verwaltungsgerichtshof decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

24. F’dan il-kuntest, permezz ta’ deċiżjoni tad-9 ta’ Diċembru 2010, il-Verwaltungsgerichtshof iddeċiediet li tissospendi l-proċeduri u li tagħmel lill-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja d-domandi preliminari li ġejjin:

‘1. Having regard to the first or third subparagraphs of paragraph 14 of point 1 [entitled] “Freedom of movement for persons” of Annex VI “List referred to in Article 20 of the Protocol: transitional measures – Bulgaria” [of the Protocol], does Directive 2004/114 apply to a Bulgarian student in Austria?

“1) Fid-dawl tal-ewwel jew tat-tielet paragrafi tal-punt 14 tal-punt 1 [intitolat] ‘Moviment liberu tal-persuni’, tal-Anness VI [intitolat] ‘[Lista msemmija fl-Artikolu 20 tal-Protokoll: Miżuri transitorji, Bulgarija]’, [tal-Protokoll], id-Direttiva [2004/114] tapplika fl-Awstrija fir-rigward ta’ student Bulgaru?

2. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: Does Union law, in particular Article 17 of Directive 2004/114, preclude a national rule which, like the provisions of the Ausländerbeschäftigungsgesetz which are relevant in the main proceedings, provides in all cases for an examination of the situation of the labour market prior to the grant of a work permit for an employer to employ a student who has already resided in Austria for more than one year (Article 3 of Directive 2004/14) and additionally makes the grant of a work permit subject to further conditions if the fixed maximum number of foreign nationals employed has been exceeded?’

2) Fil-każ ta’ risposta pożittiva għall-ewwel domanda; id-dritt tal-Unjoni, b’mod partikolari l-Artikolu 17 tad-Direttiva 2004/114, jipprekludi leġiżlazzjoni nazzjonali li, bħad-dispożizzjonijiet ta[l-AuslBG] applikabbli fil-kawża prinċipali, tipprevedi fi kwalunkwe każ eżami tas-sitwazzjoni tas-suq tax-xogħol qabel ma jinħareġ għal persuna li tħaddem [prinċipal] permess tax-xogħol ta’ student li jkun ilu iktar minn sena joqgħod fit-territorju federali (Artikolu 3 tad-Direttiva 2004/114) u li barra minn hekk tissuġġetta l-ħruġ ta’ permess tax-xogħol għal kundizzjonijiet supplimentari fil-każ ta’ eċċess tan-numru massimu stabbilit ta’ barranin impjegati?”

25. The reference from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof was lodged at the registry of the Court on 12 January 2011.

25. It-talba għal deċiżjoni preliminari ppreżentata mill-Verwaltungsgerichtshof ġiet irreġistrata fir-Reġistru tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja fit-12 ta’ Jannar 2011.

26. Written observations were lodged by Mr Sommer, the Austrian Government and the European Commission. None of the parties has asked for a hearing to be held.

26. Ġew ippreżentati osservazzjonijiet bil-miktub minn L. Sommer, il-Gvern Awstrijak, u l-Kummissjoni Ewropea. L-ebda parti ma talbet li tinżamm seduta.

IV – Assessment

IV – Analiżi

A – The legal situation of Bulgarian nationals following Bulgaria’s accession to the Union

A – Fuq is-sitwazzjoni legali taċ-ċittadini Bulgari wara l-adeżjoni tar-Repubblika tal-Bulgarija mal-Unjoni

27. As the sequence of dates affecting the legal situation in the main proceedings is rather complex, it is useful to set out a synoptic table of the relevant dates for the purpose of the determining the dispute before the referring court:

27. Minħabba l-kumplessità tal-aspetti temporali tas-sitwazzjoni legali fil-kawża prinċipali, jidher utli li nippreżenta f’forma ta’ tabella sunt tad-dati rilevanti għall-finijiet ta’ deċiżjoni tal-kawża li tressqet quddiem il-qorti tar-rinviju.

>lt>1

>lt>2

28. As shown in the table, on 30 January 2008 Mr Sommer lodged the application for a work permit which is the subject of the main proceedings, concerning a Bulgarian national studying in Austria. At that date and up to the end of the two-year period following the date of accession, the Member States applied, in accordance with the first subparagraph of paragraph 2 of Annex VI, point 1, of the Protocol, national measures or the measures resulting from bilateral agreements for regulating the access of Bulgarian nationals to their labour markets. According to the same provision, the Member States could continue to apply such measures until the end of the five-year period following the date of accession.

28. Kif jirriżulta minn din it-tabella, fit-30 ta’ Jannar 2008 L. Sommer ippreżenta t-talba għal permess ta’ xogħol li tat lok għall-kawża prinċipali, li kienet tikkonċerna ċittadin Bulgaru li kien jistudja fl-Awstrija. F’din id-data u sa tmiem il-perijodu ta’ sentejn wara d-data ta’ Adeżjoni, l-Istati Membri kienu applikaw, konformement mal-ewwel subparagrafu tal-punt 1(2) tal-Anness VI tal-Protokoll, miżuri nazzjonali jew miżuri li jirriżultaw minn ftehim bilaterali sabiex jirregolaw l-aċċess għas-swieq tax-xogħol tagħhom minn ċittadini Bulgari. Skont din l-istess dispożizzjoni, l-imsemmija Stati setgħu jkomplu japplikaw dawn il-miżuri sal-aħħar tal-perijodu ta’ ħames snin wara d-data ta’ Adeżjoni.

29. However, the first subparagraph of Paragraph 14 of Annex VI, point 1, of the Protocol restricts the Member States’ powers in that respect by stating that the transitional measures referred to are not to result in conditions for access of Bulgarian nationals to the labour markets of the present Member States which are more restrictive than those prevailing on the date of signature of the Treaty of Accession.

29. L-ewwel subparagrafu tal-punt 1(14) tal-Anness VI tal-Protokoll jillimita madankollu l-kompetenza rikonoxxuta f’dan ir-rigward lill-Istati Membri billi jippreċiża li l-miżuri transitorji msemmija ma jistgħux ikollhom l-effett li joħolqu, għaċ-ċittadini Bulgari, kundizzjonijiet ta’ aċċess għas-suq tax-xogħol tal-Istati Membri attwali f’dak iż-żmien iktar restrittivi minn dawk eżistenzi fid-data tal-iffirmar tat-Trattat ta’ Adeżjoni.

30. At the date of signature of the Treaty of Accession, 25 April 2005, Directive 2004/114 had been in force since 12 January 2005, although the period for transposition had not expired. At the date of signature therefore, Bulgarian nationals, as third-country nationals, were covered by Directive 2004/114, the transposition period for which had not then expired.

30. Fid-data tal-iffirmar tat-Trattat ta’ Adeżjoni, jiġifieri fil-25 ta’ April 2005, id-Direttiva 2004/114 kienet diġà fis-seħħ mit-12 ta’ Jannar 2005, anki jekk it-terminu ta’ traspożizzjoni kien għadu ma skadiex. F’dik id-data tal-iffirmar, iċ-ċittadini Bulgari kienu għalhekk koperti, bħala ċittadini ta’ pajjiż terz, mid-Direttiva 2004/114 li madankollu t-terminu ta’ traspożizzjoni tagħha kien għadu ma skadiex.

B – Applicability of Directive 2004/114 to a Bulgarian student after Bulgaria’s accession to the Union

B – Fuq l-applikabbiltà tad-Direttiva 2004/114 għal student Bulgaru wara d-dħul tar-Repubblika tal-Bulgarija fl-Unjoni

31. The first question from the referring court is, in essence, whether, first, the standstill clause and, secondly, the principle of preference for Union citizens referred to in paragraph 14 of Annex VI, point 1, of the Protocol, entail a duty to apply Directive 2004/114 to a Bulgarian national even after Bulgaria’s accession to the Union.

31. Bl-ewwel domanda, il-qorti tar-rinviju tistaqsi essenzjalment jekk, minn naħa waħda l-klawżola ta’ “standstill”, u, min-naħa l-oħra, il-prinċipju ta’ preferenza għaċ-ċittadini tal-Unjoni, kif imsemmija fil-punt 1(14) tal-Anness VI tal-Protokoll, jimplikawx dmir li japplikaw id-Direttiva 2004/114 għal ċittadin Bulgaru anki wara l-adeżjoni tar-Repubblika tal-Bulgarija mal-Unjoni.

32. In order to reply to that question, it is necessary first to consider the extent of the obligations referred to in paragraph 14 of Annex VI, point 1, of the Protocol.

32. Sabiex tingħata risposta għal din id-domanda, għandha qabel xejn tiġi eżaminata l-portata tal-obbligi msemmija fil-punt 1(14) tal-Anness VI tal-Protokoll.

1. The standstill obligation

1. Fuq l-obbligu ta’ “standstill”

33. The obligation attaching to the standstill clause in the first subparagraph of paragraph 14 of Annex VI, point 1, of the Protocol aims to prevent transitional measures in the Member States from having the effect of creating, for Bulgarian nationals, conditions of access to the labour market of Member States which are more restrictive than those existing on the date of signature of the Treaty of Accession.

33. L-obbligu li huwa marbut mal-klawżola ta’ “standstill”, li jinsab fl-ewwel subparagrafu tal-punt 1(14) tal-Anness VI tal-Protokoll, għandu l-għan li jevita li l-applikazzjoni ta’ miżuri transitorji fl-Istati Membri jkollha l-effett li toħloq, fir-rigward taċ-ċittadini Bulgari, kundizzjonijiet ta’ aċċess iktar restrittivi għas-suq tax-xogħol tal-Istati Membri minn dawk eżistenti fid-data tal-iffirmar tat-Trattat ta’ Adeżjoni.

34. According to the Court’s case-law, the purpose of standstill clauses is to prohibit the introduction of any new measure by a Member State having the object or effect of creating more restrictive conditions than those which applied before the date from which those clauses come into force. (7) A change of status from third-country national to Union citizen as a result of the accession of the country in question to the Union must not therefore entail any deterioration in the conditions of access to the labour market for the persons concerned.

34. Skont il-ġurisprudenza tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja, l-għan aħħari tal-klawżoli ta’ “standstill” huwa dak li jevita li Stat Membru jkun jista’ jadotta miżuri ġodda li jkollhom l-għan jew l-effett li joħolqu kundizzjonijiet iktar restrittivi minn dawk li kienu applikabbli qabel id-data li fiha dawk il-klawżoli jkollhom effett (7) . Il-bidla fl-istatus minn ċittadin ta’ pajjiż terz għal ċittadin tal-Unjoni, sussegwentement għall-adeżjoni ta’ dak il-pajjiż fl-Unjoni, ma għandhiex għalhekk twassal, għall-persuni kkonċernati, għal deterjorament tal-kundizzjonijiet ta’ aċċess għas-suq tax-xogħol.

35. From that point of view, the obligation upon all Member States by virtue of the standstill clause in the first subparagraph of paragraph 14 of Annex VI, point 1, of the Protocol is of a static nature. The clause aims to prevent any adverse effect on the legal situation of the persons concerned by comparison with their legal situation at the date of signature of the Treaty of Accession, which was 25 April 2005.

35. Minn din il-perspettiva, l-obbligu impost fuq kull Stat Membru bis-saħħa tal-klawżola ta’ “standstill” stabbilita fl-ewwel subparagrafu tal-punt 1(14) tal-Anness VI tal-Protokoll għandu natura statika. Din il-klawżola għandha l-għan li tevita d-deterjorament tas-sitwazzjoni legali tal-persuni kkonċernati fil-konfront tas-sitwazzjoni legali tagħhom fid-data tal-iffirmar tat-Trattat ta’ Adeżjoni, jiġifieri l-25 ta’ April 2005.

36. As the above table clearly shows, Directive 2004/114 was in force at the date of signature of the Treaty of Accession, but the period for implementing it had not then expired. However, the Court has consistently held that directives at that stage do not have direct effect (8) and the obligation of national courts to interpret domestic law in conformity with the provisions of those directives relates only to situations in which a ‘non-conforming’ interpretation might seriously compromise, after the period for transposition has expired, the attainment of the objective pursued by that directive, and does not aim to give early effect to the rules in that directive. (9)

36. Kif turi b’mod ċar it-tabella sinottika hawn fuq, id-Direttiva 2004/114 kienet diġà fis-seħħ fid-data tal-iffirmar tat-Trattat ta’ Adeżjoni, imma t-terminu ta’ traspożizzjoni tagħha ma kienx għadu skada. Issa, skont ġurisprudenza stabbilita, id-direttivi ma għandhomx, f’dan l-istadju, effett dirett (8), u l-obbligu fuq il-qrati nazzjonali li jinterpetaw id-dritt intern inkonformità mad-dispożizzjonijiet ta’ dawn id-direttivi jolqot biss is-sitwazzjonijiet fejn interpretazzjoni “mhux konformi” toħloq riskju li, wara l-iskadenza tal-terminu ta’ traspożizzjoni, ikun kompromess serjament it-twettiq tal-għan imfittex mid-direttiva inkwistjoni, u mhux sabiex jagħti, b’mod antiċipat, effett għar-regoli li jinsabu fiha (9) .

37. In that connection, I wish to point out that I do not share the position taken by the Austrian Government and the Commission that the legislative terms of Directive 2004/14 define the terms of the standstill obligation in paragraph 14 of Annex VI, point 1, of the Protocol. At the date of signature of the Treaty of Accession, 25 April 2005, Austria was not required to apply the directive to third‑country nationals or to Bulgarian nationals because the period for transposition had not then expired. A contrary interpretation could render ineffective the purpose of the period for transposition and could lead to confusion regarding the status in law of directives, which are legislative acts with certain binding effects which arise only on the completion of their implementation in national law.

37. F’dan ir-rigward, nenfasizza li jiena ma naqbilx mal-pożizzjoni difiża mill-Gvern Awstrijak u l-Kummissjoni fis-sens li l-valur normattiv tad-Direttiva 2004/114 jiddefinixxi l-kontenut tal-obbligu ta’ “standstill” li jissemma fil-punt 1(14) tal-Anness VI tal-Protokoll. Fid-data tal-iffirmar tat-Trattat ta’ Adeżjoni, jiġifieri l-25 ta’ April 2005, ir-Repubblika tal-Awstrija ma kinitx obbligata li tapplika din id-direttiva la għal ċittadin ta’ pajjiż terz u lanqas għal ċittadin Bulgaru, peress illi t-terminu ta’ traspożizzjoni tagħha kien għadu ma skadiex. Kull interpretazzjoni differenti tkun kapaċi li tirrendi mhux effettiv l-għan tat-terminu ta’ traspożizzjoni, u toħloq ir-riskju ta’ konfużjoni dwar in-natura ġuridika proprja tad-direttivi li huma atti leġiżlattivi li jipproduċu effetti vinkolanti biss wara t-traspożizzjoni tagħhom fid-dritt nazzjonali.

38. It follows that, at the date of signature of the Treaty of Accession, Directive 2004/114 prevented Austria only from adopting measures which might seriously compromise the attainment of the objective pursued by that directive. That prohibition, which follows from the Court’s case-law in Inter-Environnement Wallonie , (10) aims to ensure the effectiveness of directives after the end of the transposition period.

38. Isegwi li, fid-data tal-iffirmar tat-Trattat ta’ Adeżjoni, id-Direttiva 2004/114 kienet tipprekludi biss li r-Repubblika tal-Awstrija tadotta dispożizzjonijiet li jikkompromettu serjament it-twettiq tar-riżultat imfittex b’din id-direttiva. Din il-projbizzjoni, li tirriżulta mill-ġurisprudenza tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja fil-kawża li tat lok għas-sentenza Inter-Environnement Wallonie (10), tgħin sabiex tiggarantixxi l-effettività tad-direttivi wara l-iskadenza tat-terminu ta’ traspożizzjoni.

39. For that reason, apart from the situations covered by the case-law in Inter‑Environnement Wallonie , the nature of the standstill obligation must be determined, in the present case, solely in the light of national measures or measures resulting from bilateral agreements, and not by reference to Directive 2004/114. Consequently the standstill obligation may be relevant for the purpose of assessing the legal situation in the main proceedings only if the Austrian legislation has been amended with the effect of making access to the Austrian labour market more difficult for Bulgarian students after 25 April 2005 than the access guaranteed by the relevant legislation in force before that date. (11) It is for the national court to ascertain whether that is so in the present case.

39. Għal din ir-raġuni, barra s-sitwazzjonijiet imsemmija fil-ġurisprudenza Inter-Environnement Wallonie, iċċitata iktar ’il fuq, il-kontenut tal-obbligu ta’ “standstill” għandu jiġi ddeterminat, f’din il-kawża, esklużivament fid-dawl tal-miżuri nazzjonali jew tal-miżuri li jirriżultaw minn ftehim bilaterali, u mhux fid-dawl tad-Direttiva 2004/114. Konsegwentement, l-imsemmi obbligu ta’ “standstill” jista’ jkun rilevanti għall-finijiet tal-evalwazzjoni tas-sitwazzjoni legali fil-kawża prinċipali biss jekk il-leġiżlazzjoni Awstrijaka għaddiet minn bidliet li kellhom l-effett li jirrendu l-aċċess għas-suq tax-xogħol Awstrijak għall-istudenti Bulgari iktar diffiċli wara l-25 ta’ April 2005 fil-konfront tal-aċċess li kien mogħti lilhom bil-leġiżlazzjoni applikabbli li kienet fis-seħħ qabel dik id-data (11) . Hija l-qorti nazzjonali li għandha tivverifika jekk tali deterjorament ma seħħx.

2. The principle of preference for Union citizens

2. Fuq il-prinċipju ta’ preferenza għaċ-ċittadini tal-Unjoni

40. The second subparagraph of Paragraph 14 of Annex VI, point 1, of the Protocol enshrines the principle of preference for Union citizens, by virtue of which the Member States are required, irrespective of measures taken during the transitional period, to give priority of access to their labour market to citizens of a Member State as opposed to third-country nationals. (12)

40. It-tieni subparagrafu tal-punt 1(14) tal-Anness VI tal-Protokoll jistabbilixxi l-prinċipju ta’ preferenza għaċ-ċittadini tal-Unjoni, li jobbliga lill-Istati Membri li, irrispettivament mill-miżuri meħuda waqt il-perijodu transitorju, jagħtu l-prijorità, fl-aċċess għas-suq tax-xogħol tagħhom, liċ-ċittadini ta’ Stat Membru fil-konfront ta’ ħaddiema ċittadini ta’ pajjiż terz (12) .

41. Whereas the obligation arising from the standstill clause is of a static nature, the principle of preference for Union citizens, which requires the Member States to give preference to Union citizens in the context of access to their labour market, is dynamic from the temporal viewpoint. In other words, Bulgarian nationals must, in accordance with second subparagraph of Paragraph 14 of Annex VI, point 1, of the Protocol, be able to benefit not also from the same improvements in their treatment as third-country nationals in a similar situation, but also preferential treatment as against the latter. Therefore the nature of that obligation may change in time.

41. Filwaqt li l-obbligu li jirriżulta mill-klawżola ta’ “standstill” għandu natura statika, il-prinċipju ta’ preferenza għaċ-ċittadini tal-Unjoni, li jimponi li l-Istati Membri jagħtu l-preferenza liċ-ċittadini tal-Unjoni fil-kuntest tal-aċċess għas-suq tax-xogħol tagħhom, huwa dinamiku, mill-perspettiva temporali. Fi kliem ieħor, iċ-ċittadini Bulgari għandhom ikunu jistgħu, konformement mat-tieni subparagrafu tal-punt 1(14) tal-Anness VI tal-Protokoll, jibbenefikaw mhux biss mill-istess titjib fit-trattament tagħhom bħaċ-ċittadini ta’ pajjiż terz li jkunu jinsabu f’sitwazzjoni paragunabbli, iżda wkoll minn trattament preferenzjali fil-konfront tagħhom. Il-kontenut ta’ dan l-aħħar obbligu jista’ għalhekk jevolvi matul iż-żmien.

42. In the present case, the relevant date for the purpose of assessing the situation in relation to the principle of preference for Union citizens is 30 January 2008, the date when the application for a work permit was lodged. By that date the period for implementing Directive 2004/114 had expired more than one year previously.

42. F’dan il-każ, id-data rilevanti għall-evalwazzjoni tas-sitwazzjoni mill-perspettiva tal-prinċipju ta’ preferenza għaċ-ċittadini tal-Unjoni, hija t-30 ta’ Jannar 2008, id-data tal-introduzzjoni tat-talba għall-ħruġ tal-permess ta’ xogħol. F’dik id-data, it-terminu ta’ traspożizzjoni tad-Direttiva 2004/114 kien diġà skada għal iktar minn sena.

43. Although the conditions of access to the labour market laid down by the Directive are not directly applicable to a student of Bulgarian nationality, such as the student whom Mr Sommer wishes to employ in the main proceedings, they nevertheless constitute the minimum threshold laid down by the Protocol, which also applies to such a student during the period when the transitional measures apply. It follows that the legal effects of Directive 2004/114 relating to the legal situation of students who are third-country nationals apply also to Bulgarian students by virtue of the abovementioned obligation, which follows from the Treaty of Accession and thus from an act of primary law.

43. Il-kundizzjonijiet ta’ aċċess għas-suq tax-xogħol stabbiliti minn din id-direttiva, minkejja li ma humiex direttament applikabbli għal student ta’ ċittadinanza Bulgara, bħal ma huwa dak li L. Sommer jixtieq jimpjega fil-kawża prinċipali, jikkostitwixxu madankollu l-livell minimu stabbilit mill-Protokoll, li japplika wkoll fil-konfront ta’ tali student matul il-perijodu ta’ applikazzjoni tal-miżuri transitorji. Konsegwentement l-effetti legali tad-Direttiva 2004/114 dwar is-sitwazzjoni ta’ studenti li huma ċittadini ta’ pajjiż terz japplikaw ukoll għall-istudenti Bulgari bis-saħħa ta’ dan l-obbligu, li joħrog mit-Trattat ta’ Adeżjoni, u għalhekk minn att ta’ dritt primarju.

44. However, it seems to me that, in such a situation the legal effects of a directive must be treated like those of a Union Directive, and not like those of an act of primary law. Otherwise, directives applicable by virtue of the Treaty of Accession would have greater legislative force than that of other directives. (13)

44. Madankollu, jidhirli li, f’tali sitwazzjoni, l-effetti legali ta’ direttiva għandhom jiġu assimilati ma’ dawk ta’ direttiva tal-Unjoni, u mhu x ma’ dawk ta’ att ta’ dritt primarju. Fin-nuqqas ta’ dan, id-direttivi li l-applikabbiltà tagħhom tirriżulta mit-Trattat ta’ Adeżjoni jkollhom valur normattiv ikbar minn dak mogħti lil direttivi oħra (13) .

45. Thus the conditions provided for by Directive 2004/114 form a parallel minimum threshold with a view to the application of the principle of preference for Union citizens. Consequently, if access to the Austrian labour market must be granted to a student who is a third-country national in accordance with the arrangements laid down by Directive 2004/114, a Bulgarian student must be able to have the benefit of such access in conditions which are at least as favourable and, furthermore, in preference to another student who is a third-country national. (14)

45. Għalhekk, il-kundizzjonijiet previsti mid-Direttiva 2004/114 jiffurmaw, b’mod parallel, il-livell minimu għall-applikazzjoni tal-prinċipju ta’ preferenza għaċ-ċittadini tal-Unjoni. Konsegwentement, jekk l-aċċess għas-suq tax-xogħol Awstrijak għandu jingħata lil student li huwa ċittadin ta’ pajjiż terz skont ir-regoli previsti mid-Direttiva 2004/114, student Bulgaru għandu jkun jista’ jgawdi minn dak l-aċċess taħt kundizzjonijiet tal-inqas daqstant favorevoli u, minbarra dan, bi prijorità fuq l-istudent l-ieħor li huwa ċittadin ta’ pajjiż terz (14) .

46. In other words, Bulgaria’s accession to the Union had the consequence that Bulgarian nationals ceased to have the status of third‑country nationals and became Union citizens. This change in the status of Bulgarian nationals does not mean that Directive 2004/114 is applicable to them. Nevertheless, it follows from the principle of preference for Union citizens, which is laid down by the second subparagraph of Paragraph 14 of Annex VI, point 1, of the Protocol, that it is necessary to take into account the conditions of access to the labour market laid down by Directive 2004/114 as a minimum which is also applicable to a Bulgarian student while the transitional measures are valid. (15)

46. Fi kliem ieħor, l-adeżjoni tar-Repubblika tal-Bulgarija mal-Unjoni kellha bħala konsegwenza li ċ-cittadini Bulgari għaddew minn status ta’ ċittadini ta’ pajjiż terz għal dak ta’ ċittadini tal-Unjoni. Din il-bidla fl-istatus taċ-ċittadini Bulgari ma tfissirx li d-Direttiva 2004/114 hija applikabbli għalihom. Madankollu, jirriżulta mill-prinċipju ta’ preferenza għaċ-ċittadini tal-Unjoni stabbilit fit-tieni subparagrafu tal-punt 1(14) tal-Anness VI tal-Protokoll, li huwa neċessarju li jittieħdu inkunsiderazzjoni l-kundizzjonijiet ta’ aċċess għas-suq tax-xogħol stabbiliti mid-Direttiva 2004/114 bħala minimu applikabbli wkoll għal student Bulgaru matul il-perijodu ta’ validità tal-miżuri transitorji  (15) .

47. Consequently, applying the principle of preference for Union citizens, a Bulgarian national, like the student in question in the main proceedings, cannot be treated more unfavourably (principle set out in the third subparagraph of Paragraph 14 of Annex VI, point 1, of the Protocol) than a third-country national in a similar situation. Furthermore, the Bulgarian national must be able to have access to the labour market not only in conditions as favourable as those applicable to third-country nationals, but also in preference to them.

47. Konsegwentement, b’applikazzjoni tal-prinċipju ta’ preferenza għaċ-ċittadini tal-Unjoni, ċittadin Bulgaru, bħal dak inkwistjoni fil-kawża prinċipali, ma jistax jiġi ttrattat b’mod iktar żvantaġġuż (prinċipju stabbilit fit-tielet subparagrafu tal-punt 1(14) tal-Anness VI tal-Protokoll) minn ċittadin ta’ pajjiż terz li jinsab f’sitwazzjoni paragunabbli. Barra minn hekk, f’dak li jikkonċerna l-aċċess għas-suq tax-xogħol, huwa għandu mhux biss ikun jista’ jgawdi minn tali aċċess taħt kundizzjonijiet favorevoli daqs dawk applikabbli għal ċittadini ta’ pajjiż terz, iżda wkoll bi prijorità fuq dawn tal-aħħar.

48. However, the term ‘third-country national’ cannot cover persons who, by virtue of international agreements concluded between the Union and non-member countries, receive treatment equal to that of Union citizens, such as nationals of EEA countries. Interpretation to the contrary would make the arrangements laid down by the Protocol for the transitional period ineffective and could deprive of practical effect much of the first subparagraph of Paragraph 2 of Annex VI, point 1, of the Protocol, which provides for the application of national measures or measures resulting from bilateral agreements during the transitional period. (16)

48. Madankollu, għandu jiġi enfasizzat li l-kunċett ta’ “ċittadin ta’ pajjiż terz” ma jistax japplika għal persuni li, skont ftehim internazzjonali konklużi bejn l-Unjoni u l-pajjiżi terzi, igawdu minn trattament ugwali għal dak taċ-ċittadini tal-Unjoni, bħal ma huma ċ-ċittadini tal-pajjiżi taż-Żona Ekonomika Ewropea (ŻEE). Fil-fatt, interpretazzjoni kuntrarja tirrendi mhux effettiva s-sistema stabbilita mill-Protokoll matul il-perijodu transitorju, u tista’ ċċaħħad parti kbira mill-effettività tal-ewwel subparagrafu tal-punt 1(2) tal-Anness VI tal-Protokoll, li jipprovdi l-applikazzjoni tal-miżuri nazzjonali jew tal-miżuri li jirriżultaw minn ftehim bilaterali matul il-perijodu transitorju (16) .

49. In that context, it seem to me also useful to add that, first, in accordance with the principle of preference for Union citizens, individuals in a legal situation such as that in question in the main proceedings may, as against the host Member State, rely before the national courts on the provisions of Directive 2004/114 which, from the viewpoint of their content, are unconditional and sufficiently precise provided that the conditions laid down by the Court’s case-law on the subject of the direct effect of directives are fulfilled. (17)

49. F’dan il-kuntest, jidhirli li jkun ukoll utili li nżid li, minn naħa, b’applikazzjoni tal-prinċipju ta’ preferenza għaċ-ċittadini tal-Unjoni, huwa possibbli, għall-individwi li jinsabu f’sitwazzjoni legali bħal dik fil-kawża prinċipali, li jinvokaw id-dispożizzjonijiet tad-Direttiva 2004/114, li huma, mill-perspettiva tal-kontenut tagħhom, inkundizzjonali u suffiċjentement preċiżi, quddiem il-qrati nazzjonali kontra l-Istat Membru ospitanti, sakemm il-kundizzjonijiet stabbiliti mill-ġurisprudenza tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja dwar l-effett dirett tad-direttivi jkunu ssodisfatti (17) .

50. Secondly, it has consistently been held that the national courts must interpret national law, as far as possible, in the light of the wording and purpose of the directive in order to achieve the result sought by the directive. Therefore it follows from that obligation of interpretation in conformity with Community law that the national courts must interpret the relevant provisions of national law in conformity with the requirements of the directive. (18)

50. Min-naħa l-oħra, hija ġurisprudenza stabbilita li l-qrati nazzjonali huma obbligati li jinterpretaw id-dritt intern kemm jista’ jkun fid-dawl tat-test u l-għan tad-direttiva inkwistjoni sabiex jintlaħaq ir-riżultat intiż minnha. Għalhekk jirriżulta minn dan l-obbligu ta’ interpretazzjoni konformi li l-qrati nazzjonali huma obbligati li jinterpretaw id-dispożizzjonijiet rilevanti tad-dritt nazzjonali b’mod konformi mal-rekwiżiti tad-direttiva (18) .

C – Compatibility of national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings with Directive 2004/114

C – Fuq il-kompatibbiltà ta’ leġiżlazzjoni nazzjonali bħal dik inkwistjoni fil-kawża prinċipali mad-Direttiva 2004/114

51. By its second question the referring court asks whether, if the reply to the first question is in the affirmative, Union law, in particular Article 17 of Directive 2004/114, precludes a national rule which, like the provisions of the AuslBG which are relevant in the main proceedings, provides for an examination of the situation of the national labour market prior to the issue of a work permit to an employer on behalf of a student who has already resided in Austria for more than one year, and which additionally makes the issue of such a permit subject to further conditions if the fixed maximum number of foreign nationals employed has been exceeded for the Land (region) concerned.

51. Bit-tieni domanda preliminari tagħha, il-qorti tar-rinviju tistaqsi, fl-ipoteżi ta’ risposta pożittiva għall-ewwel domanda, jekk id-dritt tal-Unjoni, u b’mod partikolari l-Artikolu 17 tad-Direttiva 2004/114, jipprekludix leġiżlazzjoni ta’ Stat Membru li, bħad-dispożizzjonijiet tal-AuslBG applikabbli fil-kawża prinċipali, tipprovdi eżami sistematiku tas-sitwazzjoni tas-suq tax-xogħol nazzjonali qabel ma jinħareġ lil prinċipal permess ta’ xogħol ta’ student li jkun diġà ilu jirrisjedi għal iktar minn sena fit-territorju federali, u li, minbarra dan, tissuġġetta il-ħruġ ta’ tali permess għal kundizzjonijiet supplimentari fil-każ li jinqabeż in-numru massimu ta’ impjegati barranin iffissat mil-Land ikkonċernat.

1. The relationship between the objectives of Directive 2004/114 and the restrictive measures laid down by the Austrian legislation

1. Fuq ir-relazzjoni bejn l-għanijiet li għandhom jintlaħqu mid-Direttiva 2004/114 u l-miżuri restrittivi stabbiliti mil-leġiżlazzjoni Awstrijaka

52. In order to reply to the question from the referring court, it is necessary first to set out the objectives of Directive 2004/114.

52. Sabiex tingħata risposta għad-domanda li saret mill-qorti tar-rinviju, għandhom, l-ewwel nett, jiġu ppreżentati l-għanijiet li għandhom jintlaħqu mid-Direttiva 2004/114.

53. According to recitals (6) and (7) of Directive 2004/114, its objectives are to promote the mobility of third-country nationals who are students to the Community for the purpose of studies. The object of that mobility is to promote Europe as a whole as a world centre of excellence for studies and vocational training. In that field, therefore, it is a matter of migration sought by the Union, which is temporary and independent of the labour market.

53. Konformement mal-premessi 6 u 7 tad-Direttiva 2004/114, din għandha bħala għan li tiffavorixxi l-mobbiltà tal-istudenti li huma ċittadini ta’ pajjiż terz lejn l-Unjoni għal skopijiet ta’ edukazzjoni. Din il-mobbiltà għandha bħala għan li tippromwovi l-Ewropa bħala ċentru dinji ta’ eċċellenza fl-istudju u t-taħriġ vokazzjonali. F’dan il-qasam, din hija migrazzjoni mfittxija mill-Unjoni, temporanja u indipendenti mis-sitwazzjoni tas-suq tax-xogħol.

54. According to the first subparagraph of Article 17(1) of Directive 2004/114, students covered by the directive are entitled to be employed and to exercise self‑employed economic activity outside their study time, subject to the rules and conditions applicable to the relevant activity in the host Member State. It may appear at first sight that that provision confers upon those concerned a subjective right of access to employment, at least if it is not a matter of self-employed economic activity. However, the second sentence of that provision permits the Member States concerned, notwithstanding the rule set out in the first sentence, to take account of the situation of their labour market. The second subparagraph of Article 17(1) also provides for the possibility of granting prior authorisation to students and/or employers where necessary.

54. Skont l-ewwel subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 17(1) tad-Direttiva 2004/114, l-istudenti koperti minn din id-direttiva għandhom ikunu intitolati li jeżerċitaw attivita ekonomika bħala persuni impjegati u li jeżerċitaw attività ekonomika bħala persuni li jaħdmu għal rashom barra mill-ħin iddedikat għall-istudju, u bla ħsara għar-regoli u l-kundizzjonijiet applikabbli għall-attività rilevanti fl-Istat Membru ospitanti. Jista’ jidher, mal-ewwel daqqa t’għajn, li l-ewwel subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 17(1) ta’ din id-direttiva jagħti lill-persuni kkonċernati dritt suġġettiv ta’ aċċess għall-impjieg, tal-inqas meta ma tkunx involuta attività ekonomika bħala persuni li jaħdmu għal rashom. Madankollu, it-tieni sentenza ta’ din id-dispożizzjoni tippermetti lill-Istati Membri kkonċernati, minkejja r-regola stabbilita fl-ewwel sentenza, li jieħdu inkunsiderazzjoni s-sitwazzjoni tas-suq tax-xogħol tagħhom. It-tieni subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 17(1) ta’ din id-direttiva jipprovdi wkoll il-possibilità li tingħata, fejn meħtieġ, awtorizzazzjoni minn qabel lill-istudenti u/jew min jimpjegahom.

55. Furthermore, Article 17(2) to (4) lists the measures which Member States are authorised to take to regulate access to employment for students who are third-country nationals. I consider that the Member States are required to use them primarily to prevent students from causing difficulties in their labour market as an additional source of labour.

55. Minbarra dan, l-Artikolu 17(2) sa (4) tad-Direttiva 2004/114 jelenka l-miżuri li l-Istati Membri huma awtorizzati jieħdu bl-għan li jirregolaw l-aċċess għax-xogħol tal-istudenti li jkunu ċittadini ta’ pajjiż terz. Inħoss li l-Istati Membri huma obbligati li japplikawhom prinċipalment sabiex jevitaw li dawn l-istudenti joħolqu diffikultajiet fis-suq tax-xogħol tagħhom bħala sorsi supplimentari ta’ ħaddiema.

56. Only after exhausting those possibilities can the host State rely on the second sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 17(1) in order to take the labour‑market situation into account. On that point I consider that that provision may be applied only in exceptional cases, as appears from recital (18) to the directive, and only if the proposed measures are justified and proportionate to the desired objective.

56. Huwa biss wara li jkun eżawrixxa l-imsemmija possibiltajiet li l-Istat Membru ospitanti jista’ jinvoka t-tieni sentenza tal-ewwel subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 17(1) tad-Direttiva 2004/114, sabiex jieħu inkunsiderazzjoni s-sitwazzjoni tas-suq tax-xogħol. Fid-dawl ta’ dan, jiena nikkunsidra li din id-dispożizzjoni tista’ tiġi applikata biss f’każ eċċezzjonali, kif jirriżulta mill-premessa 18 ta’ din id-direttiva, u li l-miżuri maħsuba jkunu ġġustifikati u proporzjonali mal-għan imfittex.

57. That interpretation is confirmed not only by the general scheme of Directive 2004/114, but also by the objective referred to in recital (18), which states that access to the labour market under the conditions set out in the directive should be the general rule. That enables the main objective of the directive to be attained which, as mentioned above, is to promote the mobility of students who are third‑country nationals to the Community for the purpose of studies and to promote Europe as a whole as a world centre of excellence for studies and vocational training.

57. Din l-interpretazzjoni hija kkorroborata mhux biss mill-istruttura ġenerali tad-Direttiva 2004/114, iżda wkoll mill-għan imsemmi f’din il-premessa 18 li tindika li l-aċċess għas-suq tax-xogħol għandu jikkostitwixxi r-regola ġenerali fil-kuntest tas-sistema stabbilita minn din id-direttiva. Fil-fatt, hija tippermetti li jiġi żgurat it-twettiq tal-għan prinċipali ta’ din id-direttiva, diġà mfakkar hawn fuq, li jikkonsisti fil-promozzjoni tal-mobbiltà tal-istudenti li huma ċittadini ta’ pajjiż terz lejn l-Unjoni għal skopijiet ta’ edukazzjoni u sabiex l-Ewropa tiġi promossa bħala ċentru dinji ta’ eċċellenza għall-istudju u t-taħriġ vokazzjonali.

58. Consequently, in view of the wording of Article 17(1), first subparagraph, of Directive 2004/114 and its objectives, that provision must be interpreted as meaning that access to the labour market is the rule applying to students who are third-country nationals after the first year of residence, and that restrictions on such access are the exception. It follows that the situation of the labour market can be taken into account only in exceptional cases, for example, where a sector of the labour market or a region of the host Member State is in difficulty or in the case of exceptional deterioration in the employment situation at the national level. (19)

58. Konsegwentement, fid-dawl tal-kliem tal-ewwel subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 17(1) tad-Direttiva 2004/114, u tal-għanijiet li għandhom jintlaħqu minnha, din id-dispożizzjoni għandha tiġi interpretata fis-sens li l-aċċess għas-suq tax-xogħol jikkostitwixxi r-regola applikabbli għall-istudenti li huma ċittadini ta’ pajjiż terz wara l-ewwel sena ta’ residenza tagħhom, u li r-restrizzjonijiet għal dan l-aċċess jikkostitwixxu l-eċċezzjoni. Konsegwentement, it-teħid inkunsiderazzjoni tas-sitwazzjoni tas-suq tax-xogħol ma għandux ikun possibbli ħlief f’każijiet eċċezzjonali li jkollhom x’jaqsmu, pereżempju, mad-diffikultaijiet li jiltaqa’ magħhom settur tas-suq tax-xogħol jew reġjun tal-Istat Membru ospitanti, jew inkella d-deterjorament eċċezzjonali tas-sitwazzjoni tal-impjiegi fil-livell nazzjonali (19) .

59. In that context, I observe that the referring court is in doubt concerning the contradiction alleged to exist between the second sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 17(1) of Directive 2004/114 and Article 17(3).

59. F’dan il-kuntest, nosserva li l-qorti tar-rinviju tistaqsi dwar il-kontradizzjoni li, fil-fehma tagħha, teżisti bejn it-tieni sentenza tal-ewwel subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 17(1) tad-Direttiva 2004/114 u l-Artikolu 17(3) ta’ din id-direttiva.

60. To reconcile those two provisions, it is necessary to have recourse to an interpretation which takes account of the general scheme and the purpose of the directive. Article 17(3) permits access to the labour market to be limited for the first year of residence in connection with studies, and no justification is required. I think that possibility is necessary in order to prevent abuse of the directive and to ensure that studying is indeed the main reason for the persons concerned to reside in national territory. On that point, it must be observed that, according to recital (7) to the directive, migration for the purposes set out in the directive is temporary and does not depend on the labour-market situation in the host Member State. That is why, until the end of the first year of residence, the students concerned have access to economic activity only under the conditions and subject to the limitations laid down by national law.

60. Sabiex jiġu rrikonċiljati dawn iż-żewġ dispożizzjonijiet, għandu jsir riferiment għal interpretazzjoni li tieħu inkunsiderazzjoni l-istruttura ġenerali u l-għan finali tad-Direttiva 2004/114. L-Artikolu 17(3) tagħha jippermetti li l-aċċess għas-suq tax-xogħol ikun ristrett matul l-ewwel sena ta’ residenza għal skopijiet ta’ studju, mingħajr ma tkun mitluba ebda ġustifikazzjoni. Tali possibbiltà jidhirli li hija neċessarja sabiex jiġu evitati l-abbużi ta’ din id-direttiva u sabiex ikun garantit li l-istudju effettivament jikkostitwixxi r-raġuni prinċipali tar-residenza tal-persuni kkonċernati fit-territorju nazzjonali. F’dan ir-rigward, għandu jitfakkar li, skont il-premessa 7 ta’ din id-direttiva, il-migrazzjoni għall-għanijiet imsemmija fiha hija temporanja u ma tiddependix fuq is-sitwazzjoni tas-suq tax-xogħol tal-Istat Membru ospitanti. Għal din ir-raġuni, sa tmiem l-ewwel sena ta’ residenza, l-istudenti kkonċernati jgawdu mill-aċċess għall-attivitajiet ekonomiċi biss taħt il-kundizzjonijiet u bir-restrizzjonijiet previsti mil-leġiżlazzjoni nazzjonali.

61. Nevertheless, such a measure, which is for a limited period, is less restrictive than that in the second sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 17(1) of the directive. The taking account of the labour‑market situation in the Member State in question, as authorised by that provision, is a general derogation which is not limited to the first year of residence, which requires, as I have already said, the existence of an exceptional situation.

61. Minkejja dan, tali miżura, limitata ratione temporis , hija inqas restrittiva minn dik prevista fit-tieni sentenza tal-ewwel subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 17(1) tal-istess direttiva. It-teħid inkunsiderazzjoni tas-sitwazzjoni tas-suq tax-xogħol fl-Istat Membru inkwistjoni, awtorizzat b’din id-dispożizzjoni, jikkostitwixxi fil-fatt dispożizzjoni derogatorja ta’ natura ġenerali, mhux limitata għall-ewwel sena ta’ residenza, li teħtieġ, kif diġà indikajt, l-eżistenza ta’ sitwazzjoni eċċezzjonali.

62. With regard to the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, it appears from the order for reference that that legislation requires a systematic examination of the labour market. (20) To be exact, under the relevant national legislation, in particular Paragraph 4(1) of the AuslBG, before a work permit is issued, the competent authority must systematically ascertain whether the situation of and developments in the labour market preclude employment being taken by students who are third-country nationals.

62. Fir-rigward tal-leġiżlazzjoni nazzjonali inkwistjoni fil-kawża prinċipali, mid-deċiżjoni tar-rinviju jirriżulta li eżami sistematiku tas-suq tax-xogħol huwa rikjest minn din il-leġiżlazzjoni (20) . Speċifikament, skont il-leġiżlazzjoni nazzjonali rilevanti, u b’mod partikolari tal-Artikolu 4(1) tal-AuslBG, qabel ma jinħareġ il-permess ta’ xogħol, l-awtorità kompetenti għandha l-obbligu li tivverifika, sistematikament, jekk is-sitwazzjoni u l-iżvilupp tas-suq tax-xogħol ma jopponux li dan l-impjieg jittieħed minn studenti li huma ċittadini ta’ pajjiż terz.

63. On the other hand, Paragraph 4b(1) of the AuslBG, which provides that a work permit may be granted to such a student only if the vacant position in question cannot be filled by an Austrian national or a foreign national treated as an Austrian national, as a Union citizen, seems to me justified in the light of the principle of preference for Union citizens, enshrined in Union law and laid down by, inter alia, the second subparagraph of paragraph 14 , Annex VI, point 1, of the Protocol.

63. Għall-kuntrarju, id-dispożizzjoni tal-Artikolu 4 b(1) tal-AuslBG, li tipprovdi li dan il-permess jista’ jingħata lil tali student biss jekk il-pożizzjoni vakanti inkwistjoni ma tistax timtela minn ċittadin Awstrijak jew minn barrani li jitqies li huwa ċittadin Awstrijak, bħal ċittadin tal-Unjoni, ma tidhirx iġġustifikata fid-dawl tal-prinċipju ta’ preferenza għaċ-ċittadini tal-Unjoni, stabbilit mid-dritt tal-Unjoni u msemmi, fost oħrajn, fit-tieni subparagrafu tal-punt 1(14) tal-Anness VI tal-Protokoll.

64. Consequently, national legislation which has the effect of creating a situation in which students who are third-country nationals, covered by Directive 2004/114, do not obtain, even on completion of their first year of residence, access to the labour market generally, but only exceptionally, is incompatible with the first subparagraph of Article 17(1) of the directive.

64. Konsegwentement, leġiżlazzjoni nazzjonali li għandha l-effett li toħloq sitwazzjoni li fiha l-istudenti, li huma ċittadini ta’ pajjiż terz, koperti mid-Direttiva 2004/114, ma jiksbux, anki wara li tgħaddi l-ewwel sena ta’ residenza tagħhom, l-aċċess għas-suq tax-xogħol bħala regola ġenerali, iżda biss eċċezzjonalment, hija inkompatibbli mal-ewwel subparagrafu tal-Artikolu 17(1) ta’ din id-direttiva.

2. Whether restrictive measures are justified

2. Fuq l-eżistenza ta’ ġustifikazzjoni għall-miżuri restrittivi

65. It does not seem to me sufficient to rely on general considerations relating to the characteristics of the labour market in the Member State concerned in order to show the existence of an exceptional situation justifying a systematic examination of the state of the labour market for the purpose of issuing a work permit to a student who is a third-country national.

65. Sabiex tintwera l-eżistenza ta’ sitwazzjoni eċċezzjonali li tiġġustifika l-eżami sistematiku tas-sitwazzjoni tas-suq tax-xogħol sabiex jinħareġ permess ta’ xogħol lil student ċittadin ta’ pajjiż terz, il-fatt li jiġu invokati kunsiderazzjonijiet ġenerali dwar il-karatteristiċi tas-suq tax-xogħol tal-Istat Membru kkonċernat ma jidhirlix li huwa suffiċjenti.

66. In that connection, I would add that such a global approach cannot be sufficiently justified by the existence of even a high level of unemployment on the national labour market unless the situation is an exceptional one. (21) Directive 2004/114 was adopted notwithstanding significant unemployment in all Member States of the Union. Therefore such general considerations cannot justify the measures laid down in the national legislation in question.

66. F’dan ir-rigward, niċċara li dan l-approċċ globali ma jistax jiġi ġġustifikat suffiċjentement bl-eżistenza ta’ livell, anki għoli, ta’ qgħad fis-suq tax-xogħol nazzjonali, ħlief jekk tkun teżisti sitwazzjoni eċċezzjonali (21) . Fil-fatt, nenfasizza li d-Direttiva 2004/114 kienet ġiet adottata minkejja l-eżistenza ta’ livell ta’ qgħad mhux żgħir fl-Istati Membri tal-Unjoni kollha flimkien. Il-miżuri previsti fil-leġiżlazzjoni nazzjonali inkwistjoni ma jistgħux għalhekk jiġu ġġustifikati minn tali kunsiderazzjonijiet ġenerali.

67. In relation, more specifically, to the admissibility of the Austrian system at issue in the main proceedings, it is clear from the order for reference that, if the maximum fixed number of foreign nationals employed is exceeded, the issue of work permits to third-country nationals is subject not only to a systematic examination of the situation and developments in the labour market, but also to additional conditions. Given that Directive 2004/114 precludes a systematic examination of the labour-market situation, I consider that it also excludes, and with even stronger reason, national measures which go beyond systematic examination and which, furthermore, require supplementary conditions of the kind provided for by the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings for the purpose of issuing a work permit.

67. Fir-rigward speċifikament tal-ammissibbiltà tas-sistema Awstrijaka inkwistjoni fil-kawża prinċipali, jirriżula mid-deċiżjoni tar-rinviju li, fil-każ li jinqabeż in-numru massimu ffissat ta’ ħaddiema barranin, il-ħruġ ta’ permess ta’ xogħol liċ-ċittadini ta’ pajjiż terz huwa suġġett, minbarra għal eżami sistematiku tas-sitwazzjoni u l-iżvilupp tas-suq tax-xogħol, għall-applikazzjoni ta’ kundizzjonijiet supplimentari. Peress li d-Direttiva 2004/114 tipprekludi eżami sistematiku tas-sitwazzjoni tas-suq tax-xogħol, jiena tal-fehma li hija teskludi wkoll, u a fortiori , miżuri nazzjonali li jmorru lil hinn minn dan l-eżami sistematiku, u li jeżiġu minbarra dan kundizzjonijiet supplimentari tat-tip bħal dawk previsti mil-leġiżlazzjoni nazzjonali inkwistjoni fil-kawża prinċipali sabiex jinħareġ permess ta’ xogħol.

68. Finally, the Court has consistently held that, when adopting measures to implement EU legislation, national authorities must exercise their discretion in compliance with the general principles of EU law, which include the principle of proportionality. (22) In accordance with that principle, measures which the Member States may adopt must be appropriate for attaining their objective and must not go beyond what is necessary to achieve it. (23)

68. Fl-aħħar nett, għandu jitfakkar li, skont ġurisprudenza stabbilita, meta l-Istati Membri jadottaw miżuri ta’ applikazzjoni ta’ leġiżlazzjoni tal-Unjoni, l-awtoritaijiet nazzjonali huma obbligati li jeżerċitaw is-setgħa diskrezzjonali tagħhom b’rispett lejn il-prinċipji ġenerali tad-dritt tal-Unjoni, li fosthom insibu l-prinċipju ta’ proporzjonalità (22) . Konformement ma’ dan il-prinċipju, il-miżuri li l-Istati Membri għandhom il-fakultà li jadottaw għandhom ikunu kapaċi li jilħqu l-għan maħsub u ma jistgħux imorru lil hinn minn dak neċessarju sabiex dan jintlaħaq (23) .

69. In that context, it must also be borne in mind that the Member States’ margin of discretion cannot be used so as to compromise the principal purposes of Directive 2004/114, as set out above. (24)

69. F’dan il-kuntest, għandu wkoll jiġi enfasizzat il-fatt li l-marġni ta’ diskrezzjoni li jgawdu minnu l-Istati Membri ma jistax jiġi użat b’mod li jikkomprometti l-għanijiet prinċipali tad-Direttiva 2004/114, bħal dawk imfakkra iktar ’il fuq (24)

70. Taking into account the abovementioned factors, it will be for the referring court to ascertain whether the national legislation meets those requirements in order to justify the restrictive measures provided for by the national legislation on access to the Austrian labour market for students who are third-country nationals.

70. Fid-dawl tal-elementi esposti, għandha tkun il-qorti tar-rinviju li tivverifika jekk il-leġiżlazzjoni nazzjonali tissodisfax dawn ir-rekwiżiti sabiex tiġġustifika l-miżuri restrittivi previsti mil-leġiżlazzjoni nazzjonali dwar l-aċċess għas-suq tax-xogħol Awstrijak minn studenti li huma ċittadini ta’ pajjiż terz.

V – Conclusion

V – Konklużjoni

71. In the light of all of the foregoing, I propose that the Court reply as follows to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof:

71. Fid-dawl tal-kunsiderazzjonijiet preċedenti, nipproponi li l-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja tagħti risposta għad-domandi preliminari magħmulin mill-Verwaltungsgerichtshof kif ġej:

(1) Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third‑country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service does not apply to a Bulgarian student after the Republic of Bulgaria’s accession to the European Union. However, by virtue of the principle of preference for Union citizens laid down in the second subparagraph of paragraph 14 of Annex VI, point 1, of the Protocol concerning the conditions and arrangements for admission of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union, the provisions of Directive 2004/114 constitute, during the transitional period provided for in the first subparagraph of paragraph 2 of Annex VI, point 1, of the Protocol, the minimum threshold for the purpose of determining the conditions of access of Bulgarian students to the Austrian labour market. In particular, that principle requires Bulgarian students to be able to have such access not only in conditions which are as favourable as those applying to third-country nationals but, furthermore, in priority to the latter.

1) kondizzjonijiet ta’ ammissjoni ta’ ċittadini ta’ pajjiżi terzi għal skopijiet ta’ studju, skambju ta’ studenti, taħriġ bla ħlas jew servizz volontarju, ma tapplikax għal student Bulgaru sussegwentement għall-adeżjoni tar-Repubblika tal-Bulgarija mal-Unjoni Ewropea. Madankollu, b’applikazzjoni tal-prinċipju ta’ preferenza għaċ-ċittadini tal-Unjoni previst fit-tieni subparagrafu tal-punt 1(14) tal-Anness VI tal-Protokoll dwar il-kondizzjonijiet u l-arranġamenti għall-ammissjoni tar-Repubblika tal-Bulgarija u tar-Rumanija fl-Unjoni Ewropea, id-dispożizzjonijiet tad-Direttiva 2004/114 jikkostitwixxu, matul il-perijodu transitorju previst fl-ewwel subparagrafu tal-punt 1(2) tal-Anness VI tal-imsemmi protokoll, il-livell minimu sabiex jiġu stabbiliti l-kundizzjonijiet ta’ aċċess tal-istudenti Bulgari għas-suq tax-xogħol Awstrijak. L-imsemmi prinċipju jirrikjedi, b’mod partikolari, li student Bulgaru jkun jista’ jgawdi minn tali aċċess, mhux biss taħt il-kundizzjonijiet favorevoli daqs dawk applikabbli għal ċittadin ta’ pajjiż terz, iżda, minbarra dan, bi prijorità fuq dan tal-aħħar

(2) Union law, in particular Article 17 of Directive 2004/114, precludes national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for systematic examination of the labour‑market situation before the issue of a work permit to an employer with a view to employing a student who has already resided for more than one year in national territory and which subjects the issue of such permit to other conditions if a fixed maximum number of foreigners with employment in the territory concerned is exceeded.

2) Id-dritt tal-Unjoni, u b’mod partikolari l-Artikolu 17 tad-Direttiva 2004/114, jipprekludi leġiżlazzjoni nazzjonali li, bħal dik inkwistjoni fil-kawża prinċipali, tipprovdi għal eżami sistematiku tas-sitwazzjoni tas-suq tax-xogħol qabel il-ħruġ, lil prinċipal, ta’ permess ta’ xogħol sabiex jiġi impjegat student li jkun ilu residenti fit-territorju nazzjonali għal iktar minn sena, u li, barra minn hekk, tissuġġetta l-ħruġ ta’ tali permess ta’ xogħol għal kundizzjonijiet oħra f’każ li jinqabeż in-numru massimu stabbilit ta’ barranin impjegati fit-territorju kkonċernat.”

(1) .

(1) .

(2) – OJ 2005 L 157, p. 29. The Protocol forms an integral part of the Treaty between the Kingdom of Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Estonia, the Greek Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic, Ireland, the Italian Republic, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, the Republic of Slovenia, the Slovak Republic, the Republic of Finland, the Kingdom of Sweden, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Member States of the European Union) and the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania, concerning the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union (OJ 2005 L 157, p. 11, ‘the Treaty of Accession’).

(2)  – ĠU L 2005, L 157, p. 29. Dan il-Protokoll jifforma parti integrali mit-Trattat bejn ir-Renju tal-Belġju, ir-Repubblika Ċeka, ir-Renju tad-Danimarka, ir-Repubblika Federali tal-Ġermanja, ir-Repubblika tal-Estonja, ir-Repubblika Ellenika, ir-Renju ta’ Spanja, ir-Repubblika Franċiża, l-Irlanda, ir-Repubblika Taljana, ir-Repubblika ta’ Ċipru, ir-Repubblika tal-Latvja, ir-Repubblika tal-Litwanja, il-Gran Dukat tal-Lussemburgu, ir-Repubblika tal-Ungerija, ir-Repubblika ta’ Malta, ir-Renju tal-Olanda, ir-Repubblika tal-Awstrija, ir-Repubblika tal-Polonja, ir-Repubblika Portugiża, ir-Repubblika tas-Slovenja, ir-Repubblika Slovakka, ir-Repubblika tal-Finlandja, ir-Renju tal-Isvezja, ir-Renju Unit tal-Gran Brittanja u l-Irlanda ta’ Fuq (l-Istati Membri tal-Unjoni Ewropea) u r-Repubblika tal-Bulgarija u r-Rumanija, dwar l-adeżjoni tar-Repubblika tal-Bulgarija u tar-Rumanija mal-Unjoni Ewropea (ĠU L 2005, 157, p. 11, iktar ’il quddiem it-“Trattat tal-Adeżjoni”).

(3) – OJ 2004 L375, p. 12.

(3)  – ĠU L 153M, p. 330.

(4) – OJ 1968 L 257, p. 2.

(4)  – ĠU Edizzjoni Speċjali bil-Malti, Kapitolu 5, Vol. 1, p. 15

(5) – BGBl. I, 100/2005.

(5)  – BGBl. I, 100/2005.

(6) – It is clear from the order for reference that, in the present case, the Arbeitsmarktservice should have applied the version of the abovementioned law which was in force on 30 January 2008, the date when the national administrative procedure was initiated by the lodging of the disputed application for a work permit. With regard to Paragraph 4 of the AuslBG, that is the version published in the BGBl. I, 78/2007; with regard to Paragraph 4b of the AuslBG, the version published in the BGBl. I, 28/2004.

(6)  – Mid-deċiżjoni tar-rinviju jirriżulta li kellha tkun l-Arbeitsmarktservice li tapplika fil-każ partikolari l-verżjoni ta’ din il-liġi fis-seħħ fit-30 ta’ Jannar 2008, data li fiha l-proċedura amministrattiva nazzjonali nbdiet permezz tal-introduzzjoni tat-talba mressqa fil-kawża għal permess ta’ xogħol. F’dak li jikkonċerna l-Artikolu 4 tal-AuslBG, din hija l-verżjoni ppubblikata fil-BGBl. I,  78/2007. F’dak li jirrigwarda l-Artikolu 4 b tal-AuslBG, il-verżjoni tiegħu ġiet ippubblikata fil-BGBl. I, 28/2004.

(7) – Case C‑546/07 Commission v Germany [2010] I‑439, paragraph 66 and cases cited. See also, by analogy, Case C‑256/11 Dereci and Others [2011] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 88 and cases cited, concerning the interpretation of standstill clauses in the context of the EEC-Turkey Association Agreement.

(7)  – Sentenza tal-21 ta’ Jannar 2010, Il‑Kummissjoni vs Il‑Ġermanja (C‑546/07, Ġabra p. I‑439, punt 66 u l-ġurisprudenza ċċitata). Ara wkoll, b’analoġija u dwar l-interpretazzjoni ta’ klawżoli ta’ “standstill” fil-kuntest tal-Ftehim ta’ Assoċjazzjoni KEE – Turkija, is-sentenza tal-15 ta’ Novembru 2011, Dereci et (C‑256/11, li għadha ma ġietx ippubblikata fil-Ġabra, punt 88 u l-ġurisprudenza ċċitata).

(8) – In other words, individuals can rely on that directive against the Member States concerned only after the transposition period has expired. See, to that effect, Case C‑157/02 Rieser International Transporte [2004] ECR I‑1477, paragraph 69.

(8)  – Fi kliem ieħor, iċ-ċittadini privati jistgħu jinvokaw id-dispożizzjonijiet ta’ din id-direttiva kontra l-Istat Membru inkwistjoni biss wara li jkun skada t-terminu ta’ traspożizzjoni. Ara, f’dan is-sens, is-sentenza tal-5 ta’ Frar 2004, Rieser Internationale Transporte (C‑157/02, Ġabra p. I‑1477, punt 69).

(9) – Joined Cases C‑261/07 and C-299/07 VTB-VAB and Galatea [2009] ECR I‑2949, paragraph 39 and cases cited, and Case C‑304/08 Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft [2010] I‑217, paragraph 29.

(9)  – Ara, b’mod partikolari, is-sentenzi tat-23 ta’ April 2009, VTB-VAB u Galatea (C‑261/07 u C‑299/07, Ġabra p. I‑2949, punt 39 u l-ġurisprudenza ċċitata), kif ukoll dik tal-14 ta’ Jannar 2010, Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft (C‑304/08, Ġabra p. I‑217, punt 29).

(10) – Case C‑129/96 Inter-Environnement Wallonie [1997] ECR I‑7411, paragraph 45, and Joined Cases C‑165/09 to C‑167/09 Stichting Natuur en Milieu [2011] ECR I‑0000, paragraphs 78 and 79 and the cases cited.

(10)  – Sentenza tat-18 ta’ Diċembru 1997 (C‑129/96, Ġabra p. I‑7411, punt 45). Ara, ukoll, is-sentenza tas-26 ta’ Mejju 2011, Stichting Natuur en Milieu et (C‑165/09 sa C‑167/09, li għadha ma ġietx ippubblikata fil-Ġabra, punti 78 u 79 kif ukoll il-ġurisprudenza ċċitata).

(11) – See, by analogy, Case 77/82 Peskeloglou [1983] ECR 1085, paragraphs 11 to 14.

(11)  – Ara, b’analoġija, is-sentenza tat-23 ta’ Marzu 1983, Peskeloglou (77/82, Ġabra p. 1085, punti 11 sa 14).

(12) – Unless I am mistaken, the first question from the referring court appears to be slightly inaccurate because, contrary to what the referring court says, the principle of preference for Union citizens is set out in the second subparagraph of Paragraph 14 of Annex VI, point 1, of the Protocol. On the other hand, the third subparagraph of Paragraph 14, to which the first question refers, provides that Bulgarian migrant workers legally resident and working in another Member State are not to be treated in a more restrictive way than migrant workers who came from a third country.

(12)  – L-ewwel domanda preliminari jidher li fiha, jekk mhux qed niżbalja, ineżatezza żgħira, peress, kuntrarjament għal dak li ssostni l-qorti tar-rinviju, il-prinċipju ta’ preferenza għaċ-ċittadini tal-Unjoni jissemma ex admissis fit-tieni subparagrafu tal-punt 1(14) tal-Anness VI tal-Protokoll. Għall-kuntrarju, it-tielet subparagrafu tal-punt 1(14) ta’ dan l-anness, li jissemma fl-ewwel domanda preliminari, jipprovdi li l-ħaddiema migranti Bulgari li jirrisjedu u jaħdmu legalment fi Stat Membru ieħor ma jistgħux jiġu ttrattati b’mod iktar restrittiv minn ħaddiema migranti li ġejjin minn Stat terz.

(13) – The principle that acts of secondary legislation retain their status in law on the accession of States to the Union is well established in Union law. In particular, it is expressed in Article 8(1) of the Protocol, which provides that acts adopted by the institutions to which the transitional provisions laid down in the Protocol relate retain their status in law. See, to that effect, Case 203/86 S pain v Council [1988] ECR 4563, paragraph 5.

(13)  – Dan il-prinċipju li l-atti ta’ dritt sekondarju jikkonservaw in-natura ġuridika tagħhom wara l-adeżjoni tal-Istati mal-Unjoni huwa stabbilit sew fid-dritt tal-Unjoni. Dan huwa espress, b’mod partikolari, fl-Artikolu 8(1) tal-Protokoll li jipprovdi li l-atti adottati mill-istituzzjonijiet li magħhom jirrelataw id-dispożizzjonijiet transitorji stabbiliti f'dan il-protokoll għandhom iżommu n-natura ġuridika tagħhom. Ara f’dan is-sens, is-sentenza tal-20 ta’ Settembru 1988, Spanja vs Il‑Kunsill (203/86, Ġabra p. 4563, punt 5).

(14) – Preferential treatment does not constitute discrimination against third-country nationals which is prohibited by Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. The same applies to the application of secondary-law measures relating to third-country nationals.

(14)  – Fid-dawl ta’ dan, jiena nsostni li tali trattament prijoritarju ma jikkostitwixxix diskriminazzjoni taċ-ċittadini ta’ pajjiż terz, ipprojbita mill-Artikolu 21 tal-Karta tad-Drittijiet Fundamentali tal-Unjoni Ewropea. Dan japplika wkoll meta dispożizzjonijiet tad-dritt sekondarju jiġu applikati għaċ-ċittadini ta’ pajjiż terz.

(15) – In that context the Court has consistently held th at the provisions of an Act of Accession which permit exceptions to or derogations from rules laid down by the EC Treaty must be interpreted restrictively with reference to the Treaty provisions in question and must be limited to what is absolutely necessary in order to attain its objective. See, to that effect, Case C‑420/07 Apostilides [2009] ECR I‑3571, paragraph 35 and cases cited. In the present case, this means that the status of a Bulgarian national should differ as little as possible from that of nationals of other Member States.

(15)  – F’dan il-kuntest huwa importanti li jiġi rrilevat ukoll li, skont il-ġurisprudenza tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja, id-dispożizzjonijiet ta’ att ta’ adeżjoni li jippermettu deroga mir-regoli tat-Trattat huma ta’ interpretazzjoni stretta fir-rigward tad-dispożizzjonijiet ikkonċernati tat-Trattat, u għandhom jiġu limitati għal dak li huwa assolutament neċessarju sabiex jintlaħaq l-għan tiegħu. Ara f’dan is-sens, is-sentenza tat-28 ta’ April 2009, Apostolides (C‑420/07, Ġabra p. I‑3571, punt 35 u l-ġurisprudenza ċċitata). F’din il-kawża, dan ifisser li l-istatus ta’ ċittadin Bulgaru għandu jkun differenti mill-istatus taċ-ċittadini tal-Istati Membri l-oħra mill-inqas possibbli.

(16) – See, by analogy, Joined Cases C‑307/09, C‑308/09 and C‑309/09 Vicoplus and Others [2011] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 35.

(16)  – Ara, b’analoġija, is-sentenza tal-10 ta’ Frar 2011, Vicoplus et (C‑307/09 sa C‑309/09, li għadha ma ġietx ippubblikata fil-Ġabra, punt 35).

(17) – Case C‑203/10 Auto Nikolovi [2011] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 61 and cases cited, and Joined Cases C‑468/10 and C‑469/10 ASNEF and FECEMD [2011] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 51.

(17)  – Ara, b’mod partikolari, is-sentenzi tat-3 ta’ Marzu 2011, Auto Nikolovi (C‑203/10, li għadha ma ġietx ippubblikata fil-Ġabra, punt 61 u l-ġurisprudenza ċċitata), kif ukoll tal-24 ta’ Novembru 2011, ASNEF u FECEMD (C‑468/10 u C‑469/10, li għadha ma ġietx ippubblikata fil-Ġabra, punt 51).

(18) – For the obligation of interpretation in conformity with Community law, see Joined Cases C‑378/07 to C‑380/07 Angelidaki and Others [2011] ECR I‑3071, paragraphs 197 to 207 and cases cited.

(18)  – Ara, b’mod partikolari, f’dak li jikkonċerna l-obbligu ta’ interpretazzjoni konformi, is-sentenza tat-23 ta’ April 2009, Angelidaki et (C‑378/07 sa C‑380/07, Ġabra p. I‑3071, punti 197 sa 207 u l-ġurisprudenza ċċitata).

(19) – In other words, a situation may be described as exceptional in at least three cases. First, there may be a regional problem where the rate of unemployment in a region is significantly higher than the national average. Secondly, the exceptional situation may also be connected with a sectoral imbalance where a particular sector of the labour market encounters serious difficulties. Thirdly, the employment situation at the national level may be exceptionally bad. The present deterioration in the employment situation in Spain may illustrate this hypothesis.

(19)  – Fi kliem ieħor, sitwazzjoni tista’ tiġi kklassifikata bħala eċċezzjonali f’mill-inqas tliet ipotesijiet. L-ewwel nett, jista’ jkun każ ta’ problema reġjonali, meta r-rata tal-qgħad f’reġjun hija konsiderevolment ogħla mill-medja nazzjonali. It-tieni nett, is-sitwazzjoni eċċezzjonali tista’ tkun marbuta wkoll ma’ żbilanċ settorjali, meta settur partikolari tas-suq tax-xogħol jiltaqa’ ma’ diffikultajiet kbar. It-tielet, fl-aħħar nett, fuq livell nazzjonali, is-sitwazzjoni tax-xogħol tista’ tiddeterjora b’mod eċċezzjonali. Id-deterjorament attwali tas-sitwazzjoni tax-xogħol fi Spanja jista’ jkun eżempju ta’ din l-ipotesi.

(20) – It must also be observed that Case C‑568/10 Commission v Austria was removed from the register by order of the president of the Court of 22 November 2011. In that case the Commission complained that Austria had failed in its obligations under Article 17 of Directive 2004/114 by retaining its national legislation as set out above. However, on 4 October 2010, the Commission withdrew the case because Paragraph 4 of the AuslBG had been amended so as to include a rule whereby the issue of a work permit for students who are third-country nationals should not be subject to systematic examination of the labour market.

(20)  – Għandu jiġi osservat ukoll li b’digriet tal-President tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja tal-22 ta’ Novembru 2011, il-kawża Il‑Kummissjoni vs L‑Awstrija (C‑568/10) tħassret mir-Reġistru tal-Qorti tal-Ġustizzja. F’dik il-kawża, il-Kummissjoni kienet akkużat lir-Repubblika tal-Awstrija li naqset milli twettaq l-obbligi imposti fuqha skont l-Artikolu 17 tad-Direttiva 2004/114 billi żammet id-dritt nazzjonali kif espost hawn fuq. Il-Kummissjoni kienet irrinunzjat din il-proċedura fl-4 ta’ Ottubru 2010 minħabba l-fatt li l-Artikolu 4 tal-AuslBG kien ġie emendat fis-sens li din id-dispożizzjoni llum fiha regola li tgħid li l-ħruġ tal-permess ta’ xogħol għal studenti ċittadini ta’ pajjiż terz ma huwiex suġġett għal eżami sistematiku tas-suq tax-xogħol.

(21) – See above, footnote 19.

(21)  – Ara n-nota ta’ qiegħ il-paġna 19 ta’ dawn il-konklużjonijiet.

(22) – Case C‑145/10 Painer [2011] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 105 and cases cited.

(22)  – Ara, b’mod partikolari, is-sentenza tal-1 ta’ Diċembru 2011, Painer (C‑145/10, li għadha ma ġietx ippubblikata fil-Ġabra, punt 105 u l-ġurisprudenza ċċitata).

(23) – Ibid., paragraph 106 and cases cited.

(23)  – Ibidem (punt 106 u l-ġurisprudenza ċċitata).

(24) – See, by analogy, Painer , cited above, paragraph 107.

(24)  – Ara, b’analoġija, is-sentenza Painer, iċċitata iktar ’il fuq (punt 107).