Opinion of Mr Advocate General Van Gerven delivered on 7 March 1990

1 Original language: Dutch.

2 Council Directive 68/360/EEC of 15 October 1968 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for workers of Member States and their families (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 485).

3 Hereafter only Portuguese workers are mentioned. The same remarks are, however, applicable to Spanish workers, regard being had to the identical wording of Articles 55 to 58 of the Act of Accession.

4 Judgment of 18 January 1979 in Joined Cases 110/78 and 111/78 Van Wesemael [1979] ECR 35

5 Judgment of 17 December 1981 in Case 279/80 Webb [1981] ECR 3305, paragraph 17; sec also the judgment of 18 January 1979 in the Van Wesemael case and the subsequent judgment of 4 December 1986 in Case 205/84 Commiutoii v Federal Republic of Germany \ 1986] ECR 3755, in particular paragraph 27 of the judgment

6 Sec the judgment of 4 December 1986 in Commisiion v Germany, cited above, paragraph 27.

7 Sec paragraph 20 of the judgment.

8 See the judgment of 17 December 1981 in Case 272/80 [1981] ECR 3277, in particular paragraphs 13 lo 15.

9 Judgment of 3 February 1982 in Joined Cases 62/81 and 63/81 Secoi /V/Į1982] ECR 223

10 See paragraph 3 of the judgment. It appears from the judgment thai the relevant provisions of Luxembourg law were introduced in order to prevent an employer from being encouraged to make use of foreign workers for the purpose of reducing his social charges (see paragraph 4 of the judgment).

11 See paragraph 8 of the judgment.

12 Paragraph 9 of the judgment.

13 Paragraphs 11 to 12 of the judgment.

14 in respect of the freedom of movement of persons, reference may be made to the judgments of 7 July 1976 in Case 118/75 Walson en Beimann [1976] ECR 1185. in particular paragraphs 17 to 21, of 3 July 1980 in Case 157/79 Pieck [19801 ECR 2171, and of 12 December 1989 m Case C-265/88 Mennet 11989] ECR 2409 As regards the free movement of goods, reference be made to the ludgments of 11 November 1981 in Case 203/80 Casali [1981] ECR 2595, in particular paragraph 27, and of 15 December 1976 in Case 41/76 Donckerwalcke [1976] ECR 1921, in particular paragraphs 32 to 38.

15 See the judgments of 27 September 1989 in Case 9/88 Lopeí de Veiga [1989] ECR 2989, in particular paragraph 10, and of 23 March 1983 in Case 77/82 Peikelogloii [1983] ECR 1085, in particular paragraph 12 (this case involved the interpretation of an identical provision in the Act of Accession relating to Greece)

16 See for example the judgment of 3 June 1986 in Case 139/85 Kemp/1986] ECR 1741, in particular paragraphs 8 to 14, together with the reference to the judgment of 23 March 1982 in Case 53/81 Levin [1982] ECR 1035.

17 Council Directive 73/148/EEC of 21 May 1973 on lhe abolition of restrictions on movement and residence within the Community for nationals of Member States with regard to establishment and the provision of services. Article 4 gives a right of residence to nationals of a Member State who wish to provide services in another Member State.

18 OJ, English Special Edition, Second Series IX, p. 3.

19 See the Commission v Germany judgment, already cited above in footnote 4, in particular paragraphs 19 to 21.

20 This description is taken from the definition contained in the annex to Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 as regards the confidential nature of the post. In Article 16(3)(a) of this regulation, offers of employment made to a named worker in view of the confidential nature of the post are excluded from the machinery for vacancy clearance provided in Articles 15 and 16.

21 This description is also taken from the exclusion contained in Article 16(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of vacancies offered to a named worker in connection with the specialist qualifications of the post offered.

22 Sec lhe judgment of 3 July 1980 in Case 157/79 Pieck [1980] ECR 2171, m particular paragraphs 11 lo 13, where reference is made to the judgment of 14 July 1977 in Case 8/77 Sagulo [1977] ECR 1495

23 See the abovementioned Pieck judgment, paragraphs 15 to 19.

24 See the abovementioned Pieck judgment, ibid-, and paragraph 14 of the Messner judgment cited in footnote 13.