Case C-3/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Veneto by order of 24 October 2001 in the case of Alessandro Mosconi and the Ordine Degli Ingegneri di Verona e Provincia against Soprintendenza per i Beni Ambientali e Architittonici di Venezia — Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali
Date: 2002-03-02
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: freedom to provide services, interpretation of the law, recognition of diplomas, right of establishment, town-planning profession

C 56/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

2.3.2002

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
Düsseldorf by order of that court of 19 December 2001
in the case of Privat-Molkerei Borgmann GmbH & Co. KG
against Hauptzollamt Bochum

(Case C-1/02)

(2002/C 56/18)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Düssel-
dorf (Finance Court Düsseldorf) of 19 December 2001, which
was received at the Court Registry on 7 January 2002, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Privat-Molkerei Borgmann
GmbH & Co. KG against Hauptzollamt Bochum on the
following question:

Does the penalty regulation in the second paragraph of Article
3(2)of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March
1993 (OJ EC L 57, p. 12) as amended pursuant to Commission
Regulation (EC) No 1001/98 of 13 May 1998 (OJ EC L 142,
p. 22) contravene the proportionality rule in cases where the
time-limit is exceeded only marginally and moreover without
fault?

(b) Do Articles 10 and 11 of Directive 85/384/EEC — which
state that a qualification as a civil engineer is to be treated
as equivalent to that of architect for the purposes of
entitlement to provide services in the professional field of
architecture — require a Member State not to exclude
from entitlement to provide the services in question
persons who have successfully completed in that Member
State a course of studies such as those completed by
those holding civil engineering qualifications in Italy?

(c) On the assumption that there is substantive similarity
between the course of studies and professional training
pursued by architects and by civil engineers, does the
principle of equality, as a general principle of Community
law, require in any event that persons holding qualifi-
cations in civil engineering be also allowed to pursue
activities reserved for architects?

(1) OJ L 223 of 10.6.1985, p. 15.

Action brought on 10 January 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the French Republic

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale per il Veneto by order of
24 October 2001 in the case of Alessandro Mosconi and
the Ordine Degli Ingegneri di Verona e Provincia against
Soprintendenza per i Beni Ambientali e Architittonici di
Venezia — Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali

(Case C-6/02)

(2002/C 56/20)

(Case C-3/02)

(2002/C 56/19)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Amministra-
tivo Regionale per il Veneto (Regional Administrative Court,
Venice) of 24 October 2001, received at the Court Registry on
8 January 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Alessandro Mosconi and the Ordine Degli Ingegneri di Verona
e Provincia (Order of Engineers of the City and Province of
Verona) against Soprintendenza per i Beni Ambientali e
Architittonici di Venezia — Ministero per i Beni e le Attività
Culturali (Authority responsible for the environmental and
architectural heritage of Venice — Ministry of Cultural Assets
and Activities) on the following questions

(a) Must Council Directive 85/384/EEC of 10 June 1985 (1)
be interpreted as meaning that, precisely because it lays
down rules of minimum harmonisation, its provisions
must be applied to purely internal situations?

An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 January
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by H. van Lier and J. Adda, acting as Agents, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:

‘Label régional Franche-Comté’,
‘Label régional Midi-Pyrénées’,

— declare that, by maintaining the national legal protection
afforded to the designations ‘Salaisons d’Auvergne’, ‘Label
‘Label
régional Savoie’,
régional Corse’,
‘Label
régional Normandie’, ‘Label régional Nord-Pas-de-Calais’,
‘Label régional Ardennes de France’,
‘Label régional
Limousin’,
‘Label régional Languedoc-Roussillon’, and
‘Label régional Lorraine’, the French Republic has failed
to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC;

— order the French Republic to pay the costs.