74 / 346
GAZETTE
APRIL 1983
Arbitration under the Contract of 1973. In the Arbitration
proceedings the Defendants claimed that the 1973 Con-
tract was void in certain respects. The Arbitrator was of
the opinion that under German law the question of
whether a Contract for a particular purpose was valid
depended as to whether that purpose amounted to an
irregularity within the meaning of the relevant E EC regu-
lations and he referred the matter to the Court for a pre-
liminary ruling.
H E LD — that the link between the Arbitration
procedure in this instance and the organisation of legal
remedies through the Courts in the Member States in
question was not sufficiently close for the Arbitrator to be
considered as a "Court or Tribunal of a Member State"
within the meaning of Article 177 and that accordingly the
Court had no jurisdiction to give a ruling under Article
177.
5. 53/81 —
Levin
v.
Stattssecretaris van Justitie —
Preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the Treaty of
Rome — right of residence.
The case dealt with the application by a Mrs Levin of
British nationality whose husband was a national of a non-
Member country for a residence permit in the Nether-
lands.
H E L D — in considering the matter, the terms
"worker" and "payed employment" may not be defined
by reference to the laws of a Member State but have a
scope determined by Community law. It was also held that
the provisions of Community law relating to the free move-
ment of workers covers a national of a Member State who
pursues an activity which may give an income less than
that which may be considered in that State as the minimum
required for subsistance whether such person supple-
ments the income with other income so as to arrive at the
minimum, or is satisfied with the means of support lower
than the minimum provided that he pursues an actual and
genuine activity as an employed person and also, that the
motive which prompted a worker of a Member State to
seek employment in another Member State is immaterial,
provided that he pursues or wishes to pursue an actual and
genuine activity.
6. Joined cases 141 to 143 / 81 —
Holdijk and
Others
— Preliminary Ruling under Article 177 of the Treaty of
Rome — measures having an effect equivalent to quanti-
tive restrictions.
This case arose out of the application of Dutch Law
regarding enclosures for fattening-calves.
H E L D — that Community law does not prevent a
Member State from introducing unilateral rules relating to
standards to ensure the protection of the animals which
apply, without distinction, to calves intended for the
national market and calves intended for export.
7. 1 5 5 / 79 —
A.M. & S. Europe Limited
—
Legal
privilege.
This very important case relates to the interpretation of
Article 14 of Regulation No . 17 of the Council of 6th
February 1962.
This decision deals with the rights of the Commission to
investigate and obtain information in order to enforce
compliance with Article 85 of the Treaty of Rome and
whether there is any doctrine of privilege or confidentiality
recognised by Community law in relation to such powers.
In the course of a lengthy judgement, the Court H E LD
that there are principles of privilege and confidentiality
which aply to any lawyer entitled to practice his profes-
sion in one of the member states and that the powers are
subject to a restriction imposed by the need to protect con-
fidentiality but this extends only to an independent lawyer,
i.e. one who is not bound to his client by a relationship of
employment.
The Court further held that it is a matter for the person
seeking to rely on the privilege to provide sufficient in-
formation to the Commission's authorised agent of such a
nature as to demonstrate that the communications fulfill
the conditions and it is not a matter which may be left to an
arbitrator or to any national authority. In the case of a dis-
pute it is for the Commission to order reduction of the com-
munications in question. Although by virtue of Article 185
of the E EC Treaty any action brought by an undertaking
against a decision of the Commission does not have a
suspensory effect, its interests are safeguarded by the pos-
sibility which exists under Articles 185 and 186 of the
Treaty as well as under Article 83 of the Rules of the
procedure of the Court for obtaining an Order suspending
the application of the decision which has been taken by the
Commission or any other interim measure. •
ROYAL COLLEGE OF
SURGEONS IN IRELAND
The Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland
is a privately owned Institution founded in
1784. It has responsibility for postgraduate
education of surgeons, radiologists,
anaesthetists, dentists and nurses. The College
manages an International Medical School for
the training of doctors, many of whom come
from Third World countries where there is a
great demand and need for doctors.
Research in the College includes work on
cancer, thrombosis, high blood pressure, heart
and blood vessel disease, blindness, mental
handicap, birth defects and many other human
ailments. The College being an independent
institution is financed largely through gifts and
donations. Your donation, covenant or legacy,
will help to keep the College in the forefront of
medical research and medical education.
The College is officially recognised as a
Charity by the Revenue Commissioners.
All contributions will be gratefully received.
Enquiries to: The Registrar, Royal College
of Surgeons, in Ireland, St. Stephen's Green,
Dublin 2.
66