Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Case C-111/02 P: European Parliament v Patrick Reynolds (Appeal — Officials — Secondment to a political group of the Parliament — Decision to terminate the secondment — Rights of the defence)
Date: 2004-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Parliament, European official, General Court (EU), appeal, indemnification, personnel administration

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/19

between Ingeborg Beuttenmüller and Land Baden-Württemberg
— on the interpretation 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 profes-
sional education and training of at least three years' duration
(OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16) and 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 (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 25) — the Court (Fifth Chamber)
composed of: P.
Jann, acting for the President of the Fifth
Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas (Rapporteur), A. La
Pergola and S. von Bahr,
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
29 April 2004, in which it has ruled:

1) The second subparagraph of Article 1(a) 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' dura-
tion must be interpreted as meaning that a qualification for the
profession of teacher, such as that formerly awarded on the basis
of a two-year period 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 that provision where the competent authority
of that Member State certifies that the diploma awarded following
education and training of two years' duration is recognised as
being of a level equivalent to the diploma currently awarded after
three years' study and confers the same rights in that Member
State in respect of the taking up or pursuit of the profession of
teacher. It is for the national court to determine, in the light of the
evidence submitted by the applicant in accordance with Article
8(1) of that directive and the national provisions applicable to the
assessment of such evidence, whether the final condition laid down
by the second subparagraph of Article 1(a) must be regarded as
satisfied in the case in the main proceedings. That condition
concerns the right to take up a regulated profession and not the
remuneration and other employment conditions applicable in the
Member State which recognises the equivalence of the old and new
education and training.

2) Article 3(a) of Directive 89/48 may be relied upon by a national
of a Member State as against national provisions inconsistent
with that directive. That directive precludes such provisions where,
for the purpose of recognising a professional teaching qualification
awarded or recognised in a Member State other than the host
Member State, they require, without exception, completion of a
period of higher education and training of at least three years'
duration and covering at least two of the subjects stipulated for
the teaching profession in the host Member State.

3) In the absence of

implementing measures enacted within the
period prescribed in the first subparagraph of Article 17(1) of
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, a national of a Member
State may rely on Article 3(a) of that directive in order to obtain
in the host Member State recognition of a professional teaching
qualification such as that awarded in Austria following education
and training of two years' duration. In circumstances such as those

in the case in the main proceedings, that possibility is neither
excluded by reason of the application of the derogation laid down
by the final subparagraph of Article 3 of that directive nor is it
conditional upon the applicant first complying with any compen-
satory measures that may be required pursuant to Article 4 of that
directive.

(1) OJ C 144, 15.6.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 29 April 2004

in Case C-111/02 P: European Parliament v Patrick
Reynolds (1)

(Appeal — Officials — Secondment to a political group of
the Parliament — Decision to terminate the secondment —
Rights of the defence)

(2004/C 118/33)

(Language of the case: French)

the judgment of

In Case C-111/02 P: European Parliament
(Agents: H. von
Hertzen and D. Moore ) with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg, appeal against
the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) of 23
January 2002 in Case T-237/00 Reynolds v Parliament [2002]
ECR II-163, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other
party to the proceedings being: Patrick Reynolds, an official of
the European Parliament,
(Belgium),
(Lawyers: P. Legros and S. Rodrigues) with an address for
service in Luxembourg — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
of: P.
Jann, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber,
C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, A. La Pergola and S. von Bahr
Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R.
(Rapporteur),
Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in
which it:

residing in Brussels

1) Sets aside paragraphs 1, 2, 4 and 5 of the operative part of the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Commu-
nities of 23 January 2002 in Case T-237/00 Reynolds v Parlia-
ment;

2) Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance;

3) Reserves the costs.

(1) OJ C 156, 29.6.2002.