Opinion of Mr Advocate General Darmon

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1. In this reference for a preliminary ruling, the Tribunal de Travail [Labour Tribunal], Brussels, raises a question which is wholly identical to that which arises in connection with the action for annulment brought by Heinrich Maag, on which I have recently delivered an Opinion (Case 43/84).

2. The submissions put forward by Mr Cantisani in support of his contention are essentially the same as those which I considered myself obliged to reject when examining Mr Maag's application for annulment. Since the same rules apply in this instance as in Case 43/84 (namely the Arrangements Regarding Free-Lance Conference Interpreters of 8 October 1974, hereinafter referred to as the Arrangements, and the Agreement between the International Association of Conference Interpreters and the Commission of 26 April 1979), I shall confine my attention to those arguments advanced by the applicant in Case 43/84 which are relevant to this case.

3. Those arguments cannot affect my perception of the nature of the contractual relationship between the Commission and self-employed interpreters, as expounded in the Opinion which I recently delivered.

4. In view of the foregoing considerations and of those set out in my Opinion in the Maag case, I propose that the Court, in reply to the question referred to it by the Tribunal du Travail, Brussels, should give the following ruling:

1 Translated from the French.