Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 November 2000 in Case C-168/98: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg v European Parliament (Action for annulment — Freedom of establishment — Mutual recognition of diplomas — Harmonisation — Obligation to state reasons — Directive 98/5/EC — Practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was acquired)
Date: 2001-01-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: action for annulment (EU), capacity to exercise rights, equal treatment, equivalence of diplomas, lawyer, right of establishment

27.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 28/1

I

(Information)

COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF JUSTICE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 19 October 2000

in Case C-155/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Pretore di Treviso, Sezione Distaccata di Oderzo):
Giuseppe Busolin and Others v Ispettorato Centrale
Repressione Frodi — Ufficio di Conegliano — Ministero
delle Risorse Agricole, Alimentari e Forestali (1)

(Agriculture — Common organisation of the agricultural
markets — Market in wine — Compulsory distillation
scheme)

(2001/C 28/01)

(Language of the case: Italian)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

Italy,

In Case C-155/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Pretore di Treviso,
Sezione Distaccata di Oderzo (Treviso Magistrates’ Court,
Oderzo Division),
for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Giuseppe
Busolin and Others and Ispettorato Centrale Repressione Frodi
— Ufficio di Conegliano — Ministero, delle Risorse Agricole,
Alimentari c Forestali — on the validity of Article 39(3), (4)
and (11) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 of 16 March
1987 on the common organisation of the market in wine (OJ
1987 L 84, p. 1), as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
No 1566/93 of 14 June 1993 (OJ 1993 L 154, p. 39), and of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 343/94 of 15 February 1994
opening compulsory distillation as provided for in Article 39
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 and derogating for
the 1993/94 wine year from certain detailed rules for the
application thereof
(OJ 1994 L 44, p. 9) — the Court
(First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the
Chamber, A. La Pergola, and P. Jann (Rapporteur), Judges;
G. Cosmas, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
19 October 2000, in which it has ruled:

Examination of the questions raised has disclosed no factor of such a
kind as to affect the validity of Article 39(3), (4) and (11) of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 of 16 March 1987 on the common
organisation of the market in wine, as amended by Council Regulation
(EEC) No 1566/93 of 14 June 1993, or of Commission Regulation
(EC) No 343/94 of 15 February 1994 opening compulsory
distillation as provided for in Article 39 of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 822/87 and derogating for the 1993/94 wine year from certain
detailed rules for the application thereof.

(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 7 November 2000

in Case C-168/98: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg v Euro-
pean Parliament (1)

(Action for annulment — Freedom of establishment —
Mutual recognition of diplomas — Harmonisation — Obli-
gation to state reasons — Directive 98/5/EC — Practice of
the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member
State other than that in which the qualification was acquired)

(2001/C 28/02)

(Language of the case: French)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-168/98: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agents:
originally represented by N. Schmit and subsequently by

C 28/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.1.2001

P. Steinmetz, assisted by J. Welter) v European Parliament
(Agents: originally represented by C. Pennera, and A. Baas, and
subsequently by C. Pennera and J. Sant’Anna) and Council of
the European Union (Agents: M.C. Giorgi and F. Anton),
supported by Kingdom of Spain,
(Agent: M. Lo´ pez-Monı´s
Gallego, Abogado del Estado) by Kingdom of the Netherlands
(Agent: M.A. Fierstra) by United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland (Agents: J.E. Collins and D. Anderson, and by
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: A. Caeiro
and B. Mongin, — application for a annulment of Directive
98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of
lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than
that in which the qualification was obtained (OJ 1998 L 77,
p. 36) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı´guez Iglesias,
President, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet
and V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P.
Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevo´ n, R. Schintgen and F. Macken,
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; H. von
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 7 November 2000, in which it:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain, the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and
the Commission of the European Communities to bear their
own costs.

(1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.

(Federal Court of Justice), Germany, for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Schutzver-
band gegen Unwesen in der Wirtschaft eV and Warsteiner
Brauerei Haus Cramer GmbH & Co. KG — on the interpret-
ation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July
1992 on the protection of geographical
indications and
designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs
(OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı´-
guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet
and V. Skouris, Presidents of Chambers, D.A.O. Edward,
J.-R Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevo´ n, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur)
Jacobs, Advocate General;
and F. Macken,
H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 7 November 2000, in which it has ruled:

Judges; F.G.

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the
protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for
agricultural products and foodstuffs does not preclude the application
of national legislation which prohibits the potentially misleading use
of a geographical indication of source in the case of which there is no
link between the characteristics of the product and its geographical
provenance.

(1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 7 November 2000

in Case C-312/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Bundesgerichtshof): Schutzverband gegen Unwesen
in der Wirtschaft eV v Warsteiner Brauerei Haus Cramer
GmbH & Co. KG (1)

(Protection of geographical indications and designations of
origin — Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 — Scope —
Directive 79/112/EEC — National rules prohibiting the
potentially misleading use of ‘simple’ geographical indi-
cations of source)

(2001/C 28/03)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-312/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bundesgerichtshof

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 7 November 2000

in Case C-371/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Queen’s Bench Division (Divisional Court) of the
High Court of Justice of England and Wales): The Queen
v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and
the Regions (1)

(Directive 92/43/EEC — Conservation of natural habitats
and of wild fauna and flora — Definition of the boundaries
of sites eligible for designation as special areas of conser-
vation — Discretion of the Member States — Economic and
social considerations — Severn Estuary)

(2001/C 28/04)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case C-371/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Queen’s Bench
Division (Divisional Court) of the High Court of Justice of