«(Freedom of movement for workers – Vehicle leasing – Obligation to register vehicle in worker's Member State of residence)»

Freedom of movement for persons – Workers – Restrictions – Prohibition on workers domiciled in national territory using rental vehicles leased from an undertaking established in another Member State and made available by the employer who is also established in the other Member State – Not permissible (Art. 39 EC) Article 39 EC precludes national rules of a Member State which provide that motor vehicles are permitted to be driven on its territory only if they have first been entered in the register of motor vehicles in the name of their owner, which if the applicant is a legal person, must have its registered office and a value added tax number in that Member State, and therefore prohibit a worker who is domiciled in that Member State from using on its territory a vehicle registered in another neighbouring Member State, belonging to a leasing company established in that second Member State, and made available to the worker by his employer who is also established in the second Member State.In such a case the worker cannot register the vehicle in the first Member State because he is not the owner; and the owner, the leasing company, cannot register it either because it is not established in that Member State and does not have a VAT number there as is required for registration of the vehicle. It follows that it is impossible for a worker domiciled in that Member State, who uses the vehicle for work and to go home at the weekend, to benefit from the provision of a vehicle belonging to a person established in another Member State. In the same way, such rules could discourage an employer based in one Member State from engaging a worker residing in another Member State because of the higher costs and administrative difficulties involved.Such a measure, which has the effect of preventing a worker from benefiting from certain advantages, in particular, the provision of a vehicle, may therefore deter him from leaving his country of origin in order to exercise his right to free movement.see paras 18-21, 26 operative part

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 2 October 2003 (1)

((Freedom of movement for workers – Vehicle leasing – Obligation to register vehicle in worker's Member State of residence))

In Case C-232/01,

REFERENCE to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Politierechtbank te Mechelen (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings before that court against

on the interpretation of Article 39 EC,

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),,

composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur) and A. Rosas, Judges,

Advocate General: P. Léger,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of the Danish Government, represented by J. Bering Liisberg, of the Finnish Government, represented by T. Pynnä, acting as Agent, of the United Kingdom Government, represented by P. Whipple, and of the Commission, represented by H. van Lier, at the hearing on 10 October 2002,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 5 December 2002,

gives the following

On those grounds,

THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),

in answer to the question referred to it by the Politierechtbank te Mechelen by order of 11 June 2001, hereby rules:

Wathelet

Edward

Jann

von Bahr

Rosas

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 2 October 2003.

R. Grass

M. Wathelet

Registrar

President of the Fifth Chamber