Case C-102/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart by order of that Court of 5 March 2002 in the administrative-law case of Ingeborg Beuttenmüller against Land Baden-Württemberg
Date: 2002-06-15
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, higher education, interpretation of the law, recognition of diplomas, teacher, vocational training

15.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 144/15

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-
gerichtshof by order of that Court of 28 February 2002 on
the appeal brought by Hannl + Hofstetter Internationale
Spedition GmbH against Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien,
Niederösterreich und Burgenland (Berufungssenat II der
Region Wien)

1.

2.

(Case C-91/02)

(2002/C 144/24)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-
hof (Administrative Court) of 28 February 2002, received at
the Court Registry on 15 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling
on the appeal brought by Hannl + Hofstetter Internationale
Spedition GmbH against Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien,
Niederösterreich und Burgenland (Berufungssenat II der Region
Wien) on the following question:

Is the increase in duty under Paragraph 108(1) of the Austrian
Zollrechts-Durchführungsgesetz, which is payable in the event
of the incurrence of a customs debt under Articles 202 to 205
or 210 or 211 of the Customs Code or in the event of
subsequent recovery under Article 220 of the Customs Code
and which corresponds to the amount which would have been
incurred as interest on arrears for the period between the
incurrence of the customs debt and the entry in the accounts,
and in the case of subsequent recovery under Article 220 of
the Customs Code between the date when the customs debt
originally entered in the accounts was due and the entry in the
accounts of the customs debt to be subsequently recovered,
contrary to Community customs provisions?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundes-
gerichtshof by order of that Court of 7 February 2002 in
the case of Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH & Co. against
Putsch GmbH

(Case C-100/02)

(2002/C 144/25)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof
(Federal Court of Justice) of 7 February 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 18 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling in
the case of Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH & Co. against Putsch
GmbH on the following questions:

Is Article 6(1)(b) of the Trade Mark Directive (1) also
applicable if a third party uses the indications referred to
therein as trade marks?

If so, must their use as trade marks be taken into account
when it is considered, pursuant to the final clause of
Article 6(1) of the Trade Mark Directive, whether ‘honest
practices in industrial or commercial matters’ prevail?

(1) OJ L 40, 11 February 1989, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
richt Stuttgart by order of that Court of 5 March 2002 in
the administrative-law case of Ingeborg Beuttenmüller
against Land Baden-Württemberg

(Case C-102/02)

(2002/C 144/26)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
Stuttgart (Stuttgart Administrative Court) of 5 March 2002,
received at the Court Registry on 20 March 2002, for a
preliminary ruling in the administrative-law case of Ingeborg
Beuttenmüller against Land Baden-Württemberg on the follow-
ing questions:

1.

2.

Is Article 3, in conjunction with Article 4, of Council
Directive 89/48/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988 on a
general system for the recognition of higher-education
diplomas awarded on completion of professional edu-
cation and training of at least three years’ duration directly
applicable so that a national of a Member State may rely
directly on the provisions of the directive where it has
not been correctly transposed into national law?

Is Article 3, in conjunction with Article 4, of Council
Directive 92/51/EEC (2) of 18 June 1992 on a second
general system for the recognition of professional edu-
cation and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC
directly applicable so that, in the absence of implementing
measures enacted within the period prescribed for that
purpose, a national of a Member State may rely on
those provisions of the directive as against all national
provisions that are not in conformity with the directive?

C 144/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

15.6.2002

If the answer to question 1 and/or question 2 is in the
affirmative:

6.

3. Does Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988
on a general system for the recognition of higher-
education diplomas awarded on completion of pro-
fessional education and training of at least three years’
duration, or Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June
1992 on a second general system for the recognition
of professional education and training to supplement
Directive 89/48/EEC preclude national legislation (in this
instance, the Verordnung des baden-württembergischen
Kultusministeriums zur Umsetzung der Richtlinie 89/48/
EWG des Rates vom 21. Dezember 1988 über eine
allgemeine Regelung zur Anerkennung der Hochschuldi-
plome, die eine mindestens dreijährige Berufsausbildung
abschließen, für Lehrerberufe vom 15.08.1996 (Baden-
Württemberg Ministry of Education regulation for the
teaching profession of 15.08.1996 transposing Council
Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general
system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas
awarded on completion of professional education and
training of at
‘EU-EWR-
LehrerVO’) which makes recognition of a professional
teaching qualification awarded or recognised in another
Member State of the European Union

three years’ duration,

least

If Article 3,
first paragraph, of Directive 92/51/EEC
applies to professional teaching qualifications awarded
after only two years’ higher education and training in
Austria:

In the event of failure to transpose Directive 92/51/EEC
within the period prescribed in Article 17 thereof, does
Article 3, first paragraph, under (a), of that directive give
rise to an entitlement to have a teaching qualification
awarded in a Member State treated in the same way as
the corresponding qualification for a teaching career in
the host Member State without the host Member State
being permitted — where the particular conditions are
fulfilled — first of all to require compensating measures
to be applied under Article 4 of the directive?

(1) OJ L 019 of 24.1.1989, p. 16.
(2) OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 25.

a)

b)

conditional, without exception, on completion of
higher education and training of at least three years’
duration,

requires the qualification to comprise at least two of
the subjects stipulated for the teaching profession in
question in Baden-Württemberg?

Action brought on 27 March 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
Netherlands

If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative:

4.

Is the second subparagraph of Article 1(a) of Directive
89/48/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that the qualifi-
cation for the profession of primary-school
teacher
awarded on the basis of the former two-year system of
education and training in Austria is to be treated in the
same way as a diploma within the meaning of the first
subparagraph of Article 1(a) of Directive 89/48/EEC
where the competent authority in Austria confirms that
the examination certificate awarded following education
and training of two years’ duration is recognised, for the
purposes of the application of the second subparagraph
of Article 1(a) of Directive 89/48/EEC, as being of a
level equivalent to the diploma (examination certificate)
currently awarded after three years’ study and confers the
same rights in Austria in respect of the taking up or
pursuit of the profession of primary-school teacher?

(Case C-113/02)

(2002/C 144/27)

An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 27 March 2002 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by H. van Lier, acting as Agent,
assisted by M. van Der Woude and R. Wezenbeek-Geuke,
lawyers.

If the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

5.

Is Article 3, second paragraph, of Directive 92/51/EEC
to be interpreted, with regard to the recognition of
professional teaching qualifications, as meaning that the
prerequisite of a ‘post-secondary course of more than
four years’ duration,’ specified in that provision, only
encompasses the prescribed higher education and training
(higher-education studies) or as meaning that the pro-
bationary period of teaching practice (probationary ser-
vice) counts towards the ‘post-secondary course of more
than four years’ duration’?

— declare that the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed
to fulfil
its obligations under Article 7(4) of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 (1) of 1 February 1993 on
the supervision and control of shipments of waste
within, into and out of the European Community and
Articles 1(e) and (f) and 7(1) of Council Directive 75/442/
EEC (2) of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council
Directive 91/156/EEC (3) of 18 March 1991, and under
Article 82 EC in conjunction with Article 86 EC;