Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) 22 January 2002 in Case C-31/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation): Conseil National de l'Ordre des Architectes v Nicolas Dreessen (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 10 EC and 43 EC — National legislation restricting access to the profession of architect to the possession of a diploma or professional qualification — Community national holding a diploma not listed in Directive 85/384/EEC — Obligation on the host Member State when presented with an application to practise the profession of architect on its territory to make a comparison between the specialised knowledge and abilities certified by the diploma and the experience acquired, and the qualifications required by its national legislation)
Date: 2002-04-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Belgium, access to a profession, equivalence of diplomas, interpretation of the law, recognition of diplomas, town-planning profession

6.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 84/19

Kauer and Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Angestellten, on
the interpretation of Article 94(1), (2) and (3) of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
application of social security schemes to employed persons, to
self-employed persons and to members of
their families
moving within the Community, as amended and updated by
Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ
1997 L 28, p. 1), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
S. von Bahr, President of the Fourth Chamber, acting for the
President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,
L. Sevo´ n and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges, Advocate
General: F.G. Jacobs, Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-
trator, has given a judgment on 7 February 2002, in which it
has ruled:

Article 94(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June
1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families
moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated
by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, read
in conjunction, depending on the case, with Articles 8a, 48 and 52
of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 18 EC, 39 EC and
43 EC), is to be interpreted as precluding application of a Member
State’s legislation under which child-raising periods completed in
another State party to the Agreement on the European Economic
Area of 2 May 1992 or in another Member State of the European
Union are not treated as substitute periods for the purposes of old-
age insurance unless

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

22 January 2002

in Case C-31/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Cour de Cassation): Conseil National de l’Ordre des
Architectes v Nicolas Dreessen (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Articles 10 EC and
43 EC — National
legislation restricting access to the
profession of architect to the possession of a diploma or
professional qualification — Community national holding a
diploma not listed in Directive 85/384/EEC — Obligation
on the host Member State when presented with an application
to practise the profession of architect on its territory to make
a comparison between the specialised knowledge and abilities
certified by the diploma and the experience acquired, and the
qualifications required by its national legislation)

(2002/C 84/30)

(Language of the case: French)

— they were completed after the entry into force of that regulation

in the first State, and

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

— the applicant receives, or received, for the children concerned,
cash maternity allowances or equivalent allowances under the
legislation of that same State,

when such periods completed in national territory are treated as
substitute periods for the purposes of old-age insurance without any
limitation in time or any other condition.

(1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.

In Case C-31/00: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Cour de Cassation (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Conseil
National de l’Ordre des Architectes and Nicolas Dreessen on
the interpretation of Articles 10 EC and 43 EC, the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber,
S. von Bahr, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola and
C.W.A. Timmermans,
Judges, Advocate General: P. Léger,
Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has given a
judgment on 22 January 2002, in which it has ruled:

Article 43 EC is to be interpreted as meaning that where a
Community national applies to the competent authorities of a
Member State for authorisation to practise a profession, access to
which depends, under national legislation, on the possession of a
diploma or professional qualification or on periods of practical
experience, those authorities are required to take into consideration
all of
formal
the diplomas, certificates and other evidence of
qualifications of the person concerned, and his relevant experience, by
comparing the specialised knowledge and abilities so certified, and
that experience, with the knowledge and qualifications required by

C 84/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.4.2002

the national
legislation, even where a directive on the mutual
recognition of diplomas has been adopted for the profession concerned,
but where application of that directive does not result in automatic
recognition of the applicant’s qualification or qualifications.

(1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

24 January 2002

in Case C-35/00: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Environment — Waste — Directives 75/442/EEC,
91/689/EEC and 94/62/EC — Waste management plans)

(2002/C 84/31)

(Language of the case: English)

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

In Case C-35/00, Commission of the European Communities
(agents: R. B. Wainwright and L. Ström) v United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland (agent: R. Magrill, assisted
by D. Wyatt, QC): Application for a declaration that, by not
drawing up waste management plans complying with all the
provisions concerning waste of Council Directive 75/442/EEC
of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194, p. 39), as amended
by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (OJ 1991
L 78, p. 32), of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December
1991 on hazardous waste (OJ 1991 L 377, p. 20), and of
European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of
20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ
1994 L 365, p. 10), and/or by not informing the Commission
thereof, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of
Directive 75/442, as amended by Directive 91/156, Article 6
of Directive 91/689 and Article 14 of Directive 94/62, the
Court (Second Chamber), composed of: N. Colneric, President
of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris (Rapporteur),
Judges, Advocate General: A. Tizzano, Registrar: R. Grass, has
given a judgment on 24 January 2002, in which it:

1. Declares that, by not drawing up waste management plans
covering the whole of its territory and complying with all the
provisions of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975
on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of
18 March 1991, of Council Directive 91/689/EEC of
12 December 1991 on hazardous waste, and of Directive
94/62/EC of
the European Parliament and Council of
20 December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste, and/or
by not informing the Commission thereof, the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Article 7 of Directive 75/442, as amended
by Directive 91/156, Article 6 of Directive 91/689 and,
leaving aside Gibraltar, under Article 14 of Directive 94/62.

2. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

15 January 2002

in Case C-43/00 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Vestre Landsret): Andersen og Jensen ApS v
Skatteministeriet (1)

(Approximation of laws — Directive 90/434/EEC — Com-
mon system of taxation applicable to mergers, divisions,
transfers of assets and exchanges of shares — Transfer of
assets or of a branch of activity — Meaning)

(2002/C 84/32)

(Language of the case: Danish)

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

In Case C-43/00: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between Andersen
og Jensen ApS and Skatteministeriet on the interpretation of
Article 2(c) and (i) of Council Directive 90/434/EEC of 23 July
taxation applicable to
1990 on the common system of
mergers, divisions, transfers of assets and exchanges of shares
concerning companies of different Member States (OJ 1990