C-27/91

OPINION OF MR LENZ —CASE C-27/91

O P I N I O N O F M R ADVOCATE GENERAL LENZ delivered on 24 O c t o b e r 1991 *

Mr President, security law the main proceedings are Members of the Court, concerned) ;

1. T h e view taken in this case by the French — on the prohibition, under Article 48 of courts and the Commission on the question the EEC Treaty and Regulation No referred by the Cour d'Appel (Court of 1612/68, of disadvantaging nationals of Appeal), Chambéry, on the interpretation of other Member States (which includes Article 48 of the EEC Treaty and Article 7 covert discrimination); of Regulation N o 1612/68 ' appears to me to be entirely convincing. — and on the fact that in the field of freedom of movement for workers 2. It is not necessary for me now to matters do not turn on conventions elaborate on that in detail but I would refer between Member States; to the Report for the Hearing and to the oral argument just presented for particulars of their submissions: and for particulars of the considerations, put forward in the alternative, relating to the application of Article 7 of the — on the status of a trainee as a worker EEC Treaty in the field of vocational (with whose treatment under social training.

Conclusion

3. A c c o r d i n g l y , and since the appellant in the main proceedings has n o t succeeded in p u t t i n g forward convincing c o u n t e r - a r g u m e n t s as to how the p r o b l e m s s u b m i t t e d t o the C o u r t should be dealt with, the question referred to the C o u r t by t h e C o u r d'Appel, C h a m b é r y , must b e answered as follows: