Criminal proceedings against Nadin, Nadin-Lux and Durré Joined Cases C-151/04 and C-152/04 [2005] ECR I-11203
Facts
Belgian residents used company vehicles registered in Luxembourg in connection with work for businesses established there. Belgian proceedings alleged that the vehicles should have been registered domestically. The national rules distinguished employees from people regarded as self-employed through their managerial position. Nadin's case involved a vehicle provided by the Luxembourg company of which he was a managing director, while Durré was involved in separate proceedings raising related issues. The Belgian court asked which Treaty freedom applied and whether registration could be required regardless of the nature and extent of the vehicles' use in Belgium.
Legal Issue
How should employed and self-employed activity be distinguished, and when could Belgium require local registration of a company vehicle supplied by a business in another Member State?
Held
The Court explained that employment requires a relationship of subordination: services are performed for and under another's direction for remuneration. Activity outside that relationship falls under establishment rather than the worker provisions, and the national court had to determine the actual position. For self-employed activity, the Treaty precluded the registration requirement where the vehicle was neither intended for essentially permanent use in Belgium nor in fact used that way. The justifications advanced did not sustain the restriction on those facts. The ruling left the relevant factual assessment to the national court and did not grant all foreign-registered company vehicles a permanent exemption from residence-state regulation.
⭐ Legal Principle
The existence of subordination distinguishes employment from self-employed activity for EU free-movement purposes. A residence State cannot require registration of a cross-border company vehicle on the grounds considered here when it is not intended for, or actually subject to, essentially permanent use there.
Significance
Nadin links the classification of economic activity with a practical cross-border restriction. A managerial title does not replace examination of the working relationship. Similarly, foreign company ownership does not settle the registration question without considering actual and intended use. The case is useful for demonstrating why decisive facts must be stated in an application problem: changing the relationship of subordination or the permanence of vehicle use can change the applicable analysis.
Common exam questions about this case
Is every company director self-employed under EU law?
No. The relevant issue is whether the person works in a relationship of subordination, performing services for and under another's direction in return for remuneration. The Court left that assessment to the national court. A domestic label or managerial title does not dispense with examination of the actual relationship.
Did the judgment prohibit every residence-State registration requirement?
No. The ruling addressed vehicles neither intended for essentially permanent use in the residence State nor actually used that way. A vehicle meeting the permanence criterion raises a different question. The conditional wording matters because company ownership abroad alone does not establish an unrestricted exemption from national registration rules.
Why should an exam answer identify the Treaty freedom first?
Employed activity and self-employed activity fall under different Treaty provisions, even though both may involve cross-border work. The Court used subordination to distinguish them before addressing the vehicle restriction. Starting with an assumed worker classification risks applying the wrong provision and overlooking the factual inquiry the judgment expressly leaves to the national court.