Ms. Jany and Ms. Szepietowska, Polish nationals, and Ms. Padevetova, Ms. Zacalova, Ms. Hrubcinova, and Ms. Uberlackerova, Czech nationals, had established their residence in the Netherlands at various dates between May 1993 and October 1996, working as window prostitutes in Amsterdam. The Netherlands Secretary of State for Justice (Secretary of State) rejected their application for residence permits on the ground that prostitution is a prohibited activity or at least not a socially acceptable form of work and cannot be regarded as being either a regular job or a profession. In July 1997, the District Court of The Hague ruled that the appeals brought against the Secretary of State's decisions were well founded, and it set those decisions aside for failure to provide reasons. In a subsequent decision in 1998, the Secretary of State, ruling afresh on the applicants' objections, declared all of them to be unfounded. The six applicants then sought the annulment of the new decision taken by the Secretary of State to the Court of Justice of the European Communities.
Poland and the Czech Republic each had signed an agreement with the European Communities to transition their accessions into the Communities (Association Agreement between the Communities and Poland signed in 1991, and Association Agreement between the Communities and the Czech Republic signed in 1993). The Court based its judgment primarily on its interpretation of the agreements between the Communities and Poland and the Czech Republic.
1. What would have been the result of the case if prostitution in the Netherlands was illegal for Dutch women? Is this a case about privacy rights or ethnic discrimination?
2. What would have been the result of the case if the plaintiffs had been Russian nationals rather than nationals of Poland and the Czech Republic?
3. Would Czech and Polish nationals be equally free to practice other professions, such as law? What legitimate barriers might there be to entry into those professions?