Case C-330/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Supremo, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, division: three by order of that Court of 21 July 2003 in the case of Colegio de Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales y Puertos against Administración del Estado, other Party: G.M. Imo
Date: 2003-09-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: engineer, higher education, interpretation of the law, recognition of diplomas, vocational training

20.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 226/11

breach of Articles 1 and 3 of Regulation No 881/92 and of
Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 3118/93.

Action brought on 25 July 2003 by the Commission of the
European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(1) OJ 1992 L 95, p. 1.
(2) OJ 1993 L 279, p. 1.

Action brought on 24 July 2003 by the Italian Republic
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-324/03)

(2003/C 226/18)

the Commission of

An action against
the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 24 July 2003 by the Italian
Republic, represented by Ivo Maria Braguglia, acting as Agent,
and Avvocato dello Stato Antonio Cingolo.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the memorandum from Commissioner Barnier of
14 May 2003 No 26777, received on 20 May 2003, in so
far as it refuses to accept as eligible for assistance advances
granted in relation to State aid by the Member States after
19 February 2003, and all measures on which it is based
or with which it is connected;

— order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

(Case C-326/03)

(2003/C 226/19)

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 July
2003 by the Commission of
the European Communities,
represented by M.-J. Jonczy, of its Legal Service.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Council Directive 99/63/EC of 21 June 1999 concerning
the Agreement on the organisation of working time of
seafarers
the European Shipowners"
Association (ECSA) and the Federation of Transport
Workers" Unions in the European Union (FST) (1), and in
any event by failing to inform the Commission thereof,
the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
under that directive;

concluded by

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 30 June 2002.

Pleas in law and main arguments

(1) OJ L 167, 2.7.1999, p. 33.

the contested act

is manifestly
The applicant claims that
contrary to Article 32 of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1260/1999 (1) and Rule No 1, Points 1 and 2 of the
annex to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1685/2000 (2).
According to the applicant, none of the provisions of the
abovementioned regulations assigns significance, for the pur-
poses of eligibility of amounts granted to the final recipient of
the funding by way of State aid, to the activities actually assisted
by the funding itself. On the contrary, the system set out in the
regulations in question gives significance exclusively to pay-
ments actually made by the Member State as final recipient, on
the sole condition that they state exactly the expenditure actu-
ally borne by the final recipient itself.

The applicant also claims that the contested act is unlawful
inasmuch as its statement of reasons is defective and contra-
dictory.

(1) OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1.
(2) OJ 2000 L 193, p. 39.

de

Sala

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
Supremo,
lo Contencioso-Administrativo,
division: three by order of that Court of 21 July 2003 in
the case of Colegio de Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales
y Puertos against Administración del Estado, other Party:
G.M. Imo

(Case C-330/03)

(2003/C 226/20)

Justice of

Reference has been made to the Court of
the
European Communities by order of the Tribunal Supremo,
Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, division: three (Supreme
Court, Chamber for Contentious-Administrative Proceedings) of
21 July 2003, received at the Court Registry on 29 July 2003, for
a preliminary ruling in the case of Colegio de Ingenieros de
Caminos, Canales y Puertos against Administración del Estado,
other Party: G. M. Imo on the following questions:

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.