Case C-109/04

Karl Robert Kranemann

v

Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

(Reference for a preliminary from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht)

(Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) – Freedom of movement for workers – Civil servant undergoing preparatory practical training – Practical training completed in another Member State – Reimbursement of travel expenses limited to the domestic stretch of the journey)

Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed delivered on 27 January 2005

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber), 17 March 2005.

Summary of the Judgment

Freedom of movement for persons – Workers – Equal treatment – Preparatory practical training – Reimbursement of travel expenses limited to the domestic stretch of the journey – Not permissible

(EC Treaty, Art. 48 (now, after amendment, Art. 39 EC))

Article 48 of the Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) precludes a national measure which grants a person who has completed a practical training period for certain jobs under conditions of genuine and effective activity as an employed person in a Member State other than his Member State of origin the right to reimbursement of travel expenses only up to the amount incurred in respect of the domestic stretch of the journey, while providing that, if such an activity were carried out on national territory, all the travel costs would be reimbursed.

(see para. 36, operative part)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) 17 March 2005 (1)

(Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) – Freedom of movement for workers – Civil servant undergoing preparatory practical training – Practical training completed in another Member State – Reimbursement of travel expenses limited to the domestic stretch of the journey)

In Case C-109/04,REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany), made by decision of 17 December 2003, received at the Court on 2 March 2004, in the proceedings

v

THE COURT (First Chamber),,

composed of P. Jann,, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), N. Colneric, K. Schiemann and E. Levits, Judges,

Advocate General: L.A. Geelhoed,

having regard to the written procedure,after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 27 January 2005,

gives the following

‘Is a national legal provision under which a trainee lawyer who completes part of his prescribed training at a place of his choosing in another Member State is entitled to reimbursement of travelling expenses only to the amount incurred for the domestic stretch of the journey compatible with [Article 48 of the Treaty]?’

On those grounds, the Court (First Chamber) rules as follows:

[Signatures]