EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2006/190/03
Case C-255/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Admissibility — Inconsistency between the grounds pleaded and the heads of claim in the application initiating proceedings — Rule whereby a Court may not rule ultra petita — Article 49 EC — National legislation making the grant of a licence subject to the needs of the market — National legislation imposing a presumption of salaried status — Reversal of the burden of proof — Absence of detailed procedural rules within the meaning of the Peterbroeck case-law — Social protection — Coordination of the applicable legislation by Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Pre-emption — Action to combat concealed employment)
Case C-255/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Admissibility — Inconsistency between the grounds pleaded and the heads of claim in the application initiating proceedings — Rule whereby a Court may not rule ultra petita — Article 49 EC — National legislation making the grant of a licence subject to the needs of the market — National legislation imposing a presumption of salaried status — Reversal of the burden of proof — Absence of detailed procedural rules within the meaning of the Peterbroeck case-law — Social protection — Coordination of the applicable legislation by Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Pre-emption — Action to combat concealed employment)
Case C-255/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Admissibility — Inconsistency between the grounds pleaded and the heads of claim in the application initiating proceedings — Rule whereby a Court may not rule ultra petita — Article 49 EC — National legislation making the grant of a licence subject to the needs of the market — National legislation imposing a presumption of salaried status — Reversal of the burden of proof — Absence of detailed procedural rules within the meaning of the Peterbroeck case-law — Social protection — Coordination of the applicable legislation by Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Pre-emption — Action to combat concealed employment)
ĠU C 190, 12.8.2006, p. 2–2
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
12.8.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 190/2 |
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
(Case C-255/04) (1)
(Admissibility - Inconsistency between the grounds pleaded and the heads of claim in the application initiating proceedings - Rule whereby a Court may not rule ultra petita - Article 49 EC - National legislation making the grant of a licence subject to the needs of the market - National legislation imposing a presumption of salaried status - Reversal of the burden of proof - Absence of detailed procedural rules within the meaning of the Peterbroeck case-law - Social protection - Coordination of the applicable legislation by Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Pre-emption - Action to combat concealed employment)
(2006/C 190/03)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Traversa and A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët, Agents)
Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and A. Hare, Agents)
Re:
Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 43 EC and 49 EC — French system for the grant of licences to performing artists established in another Member State who do not possess a licence issued under comparable conditions in their State of origin — Presumption of salaried status applied to performing artists recognised as service providers established in their State of origin where they usually provide similar services
Operative part of the judgment
|
1. |
By making the grant of a licence to performing artists' engagements agencies, established in another Member State, subject to the need to engage performers, and
|
|
2. |
The action is dismissed as to the remainder. |
|
3. |
The Commission of the European Communities and the French Republic are ordered to bear their own costs. |