Case C-339/03: Action brought on 1 August 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany
Date: 2003-09-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Germany, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, animal life, leisure park, protection of animals, wildlife

C 226/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.9.2003

A. Can Article 3(a),

in conjunction with Article 4(1), of
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 least three years" duration (1) be con-
strued in such a way as to permit restricted recognition by a
host Member State of the professional qualifications of an
applicant who possesses the diploma of Ingegnere civile
idraulico [civil engineer specialising in hydraulics] (awarded
in Italy) and who wishes to pursue that profession in
another Member State whose legislation regulates the pro-
fession of Ingeniero de Caminos, Canales y Puertos [civil
engineer]? The question is based on the assumption that the
latter profession comprises, in the host Member State, activ-
ities which do not correspond in all cases to those covered
by the applicant's diploma and that the evidence of educa-
tion and training adduced by the applicant does not cover
certain of the core matters which are generally required for
the award of the qualification of Ingeniero de Caminos,
Canales y Puertos (civil engineer) in the host Member State.

B.

Should the reply to the first question be in the affirmative,
is it compatible with Articles 39 and 43 EC to restrict the
right of applicants who seek to pursue their professions, in
a self-employed or employed capacity, in a Member State
other than the one in which they were awarded their
professional qualification,
in such a way that the host
Member State is entitled to exclude, under its national
legislation, restricted recognition of professional qualifica-
tions where such a decision, which in principle implements
Article 4 (1)(b) of Directive 89/48/EEC, entails the imposi-
tion of certain additional, disproportionate requirements
as regards pursuit of the profession?

For these purposes, ‘restricted recognition’ is understood to
mean that which authorises an applicant to work as an
engineer only in the equivalent sector (hydraulics) of the
more general profession of Ingeniero de Caminos, Canales y
Puertos (civil engineer) regulated in the host Member State,
without requiring him to fulfil the additional requirements
laid down in Article 4 (1)(b) of Directive 89/48/EEC.

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, by order of
that court dated 21 July 2003, in the case of easyCar (UK)
Ltd against Office of Fair Trading

(Case C-336/03)

(2003/C 226/21)

Reference has been made to the Court of
the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, dated 21 July
2003, which was received at the Court Registry on 30 July
2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of easyCar (UK) Ltd
and Office of Fair Trading on the following question:

Justice of

Does the term ‘contracts for the provision of [...] transport [...]
services’, in Article 3(2) of Directive 97/7/EC (1) on the protec-
tion of consumers in respect of distance contracts,
include
contracts for the provision of car hire services?

(1) Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of
distance contracts — Statement by the Council and the Parliament
re Article 6(1) — Statement by the Commission re Article 3(1),
first indent (OJ L 144, 4.6.1997, p. 19).

Action brought on 1 August 2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Federal Republic of
Germany

(Case C-339/03)

(2003/C 226/22)

the Federal Republic of Germany was
An action against
the European
Justice of
brought before the Court of
Communities on 1 August 2003 by the Commission of the
European Communities, represented by J.-C. Schieferer and
M. Van Beek, members of the legal service of the Commission
of the European Communities, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

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

1.

find that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions (in particular the laws, regula-
tions and administrative provisions for the full implemen-
the Directive in the Bundesländer, with the
tation of
exception of Bremen, Hamburg, Hessen, and Baden-
Württemberg Niedersachsen) necessary to comply with
Council Directive 1999/22/EC (1) of 29 March 1999 relat-
ing to the keeping of wild animals in zoos or, in any event,
by failing to communicate the same to the Commission,
the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Article 9 of that directive;

2. order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit
for implementing the directive expired on
9 April 2002 without all the Bundesländer having adopted
the necessary provisions.

(1) OJ L 94, 9.4.1999, p. 24.