Opinion of Advocate General Van Gerven delivered on 22 October 1992

1 Original language: Dutch.

2 OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 312/76 of 9 February 1976 (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 2).

3 OJ, English Special Edition 1970 (II), p.402.

4 On 16 December 1987 Mr Koua Poirrez signed a declaration of French nationality. This was declared inadmissible by the Tribunal de Grande Instance (Regional Court), Bobigny. It appears from the file that an appeal against that decision is pending before the Paris Court of Appeal. Since the question whether Mr Koua Poirrez acquired French nationality by virtue of his adoption is a question of the interpretation of domestic French law and not Community law, it is not for the Court to give a ruling thereon.

5 That addition is in response to the instructions contained in the French ministerial circulars No 1370 of 5 November 1987 and No 35 of 19 March 1992.

6 Sec mainly Articles 7(2) of Regulation No 1612/68 and Article 3 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community (as reproduced as an annex to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6).

7 As regards Regulations No 1408/71 and No 1612/68 sec Case 63/76 Inzirillo v Caisse d'Allocations Familiales dc l'Arrondissement de Lyon [1976] ECR 2057, paragraphs 7 to 9 and 21. Members of families of migrant workers can only lay claim to derivative rights under Regulation No 1408/71, that is to say rights obtained in their capacity as the member of the family of a migrant worker. See Case 40/76 Kermaschek [1976] ECR 1669, paragraphs 5 to 7, most recently confirmed by Case C-243/91 Tagliavi [1992] ECR I-4401 at paragraph 7. In regard to workers who wish to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that State Article 7 of Regulation No 1250/71 provides for equal treatment as recognized by Regulation No 1612/68.

8 Joined Cases 35/82 and 36/82 Morsoti and Jhanjan v State of the Netherlands [1982] ECR 3723, paragraph 18; Case 180/83 Moser [1984] ECR 2539, paragraph 16; Case 298/84 Iorio [1986] ECR 247, paragraph 17; Case 147/87 Zaoui v Cramif [1987] ECR I-5511, paragraphs 15 to 16.

9 The non-applicability to purely domestic situations applies also to Article 7 of the EEC Treaty which is drafted in general terms and of which Article 48 of the EEC Treaty is a specific application. See Morson and Jhanjan, paragraphs 14 to 15: those articles.

10 Recently affirmed in Case C-153/91 Petit v Office National des Pensions [1992] ECR I-4973, paragraph 8.

11 Case 35/85 Procureur de la République v Tinier [1986] ECR 1207, paragraph 9. See also Case C-241/89 SARPP [1990] ECR I-1695, paragraph 8, and see the following footnote.

12 Case C-260/89 ERT [1991] ECR I-2951, paragraph 42.

13 Case 4/73 Nold v Commission [1974] ECR 491, paragraph 13. Sec also my Opinion in Case C-159/90 Society for the Protection of Unborn Children Ireland [1991] ECR I-4685 at point 30.

14 Third ACP-EEC Convention signed on 8 December 1984 in Lomé, OJ 1986 L 86, p. 3.

15 See communication by the Council and the Commission concerning the date or entry into force of the Third ACP-EEC Convention signed at Lomé on 8 December 1984, OJ 1986 L 86, p. 209.

16 Article 291 of the Third ACP-EEC Convention.

17 Fourth ACP-EEC Convention signed at Lomé on 15 December 1989, OJ 1991 L 229, p. 3.

18 See Council and Commission communication concerning the date of entry into force of the Fourth ACP-EEC Convention signed at Lomé on 15 December 1989, OJ 1991 L 229, p. 287.

19 Case 181/73 Haegeman [1974] ECR449, paragraphs 4 to 6, recently confirmed by Case C-192/89 Sevince [1990] ECR I-3461, paragraphe and in Opinion 1/91 of 14 December 1991, [1991] ECR I-6079, paragraphs 37 to 38.

20 Fifth recital in the preamble, OJ 1991 L 229, p. 10.

21 The Court has held the following criterion to be applicable in the matter A provision in an agreement concluded by the Community with non-member countries must be regarded as being directly applicable when, regard being had to its wording and the purpose and nature of the agreement itself, the provision contains a clear and precise obligation which is not subject, in its implementation or effects, to the adoption of any subsequent measure (Case 12/86 Demirel v Stadt Schwäbisch Gmünd [1987] ECR 3719, paragraph 14. For an analysis of the application by the Court of that criterion, sec paragraphs 7 to 13 of my Opinion in Case C-18/90 Kziber [1991] ECR I-199.