Case C-142/04: Referencefor a preliminary ruling by the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State),Greece, by judgment of that court of 30 December 2003 inthe case of Maria Aslanidou against the Minister for Health and Welfare
Date: 2004-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, access to a profession, interpretation of the law, national implementing measure, recognition of diplomas, vocational training

C 106/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Simvoulio tis
Epikratias (Council of State), Greece, by judgment of that
court of 30 December 2003 in the case of Mikhail G. Peros
against Tekhniko Epimelitirio Ellados (Technical Chamber
of Greece) (T.E.E.)

(Case C-141/04)

(2004/C 106/72)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of
State), Greece, of 30 December 2003, which was received at
the Court Registry on 17 March 2004, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Mikhail G. Peros against Tekhniko Epimelitirio
Ellados (Technical Chamber of Greece) (T.E.E.).

hold a diploma awarded by a higher-education establish-
ment of the host Member State or a foreign diploma recog-
nised as equivalent to the qualifications of higher-education
establishments of that State (following a related, generally
applicable, procedure for the recognition of the academic
foreign qualifications, distinguished by
equivalence of
features, such as those set out in the grounds of this judg-
ment), could that administrative body, taking into account
the provisions of Articles 39 and 43 (formerly Articles 48
and 52) of
the Treaty establishing the European Com-
munity, make acceptance of an application by an individual
who, relying on a title acquired in another Member State,
asked, during the above period of time, to be allowed to
take up and pursue the above profession in the host
Member State, depend on previous recognition, in accord-
ance with the general procedure described above, of the
academic equivalence of the title held to titles awarded by
higher-education establishments of that State, and on subse-
quent successful participation in an examination provided
for in the national legislation, or should it have taken steps
itself to undertake a comparative examination of the qualifi-
cations attested to by the title submitted against the knowl-
edge and qualifications required by national legislation and,
according to the results of that examination, exempt the
person concerned wholly or in part from the requirement to
take an examination?

The Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State), asks the Court
of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on the following ques-
tions:

(1) OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16.

1. Are the provisions of Articles 3, 4(1)(a) and (b) and (2) and
6(1) to (4) of Council Directive 89/48/EEC 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), in their original
version, unconditional and sufficiently precise so that,
during the time that elapsed between the expiry of the
transposing the directive and its
period prescribed for
belated transposition into the national law of a particular
Member State (the host Member State), they could be relied
upon against an administrative body of that latter Member
State, to which the national legislation in force at the time
when the directive was transposed entrusted competence to
grant permission to pursue a particular regulated profession,
by an individual who, relying on the fact that he holds a
diploma acquired in another Member State and falling
within the scope of application of the above provisions of
in application of those
the directive asks to be allowed,
provisions, to take up and pursue the profession in question
in the host Member State?

2. If it is considered that, during the time that elapsed between
the expiry of the period prescribed for transposing Directive
89/48/EEC and its belated transposition into the national
law of a particular Member State (the host Member State),
the provisions of the directive were not capable of being
relied upon by an individual against an administrative body
of that Member State to which the national legislation in
force before the directive was transposed entrusted compe-
tence to grant permission to pursue a particular profession
following examination, the participants in which had to

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Simvoulio tis
Epikratias (Council of State), Greece, by judgment of that
court of 30 December 2003 in the case of Maria Aslanidou
against the Minister for Health and Welfare

(Case C-142/04)

(2004/C 106/73)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of
State), Greece, by judgment of 30 December 2003, which was
received at the Court Registry on 17 March 2004, for a preli-
minary ruling in the case of Maria Aslanidou against
the
Minister for Health and Welfare

The Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Council of State), Greece, asks the
Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on the following
questions:

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/43

1. Are the provisions of Articles 3, 4(1)(a) and (b) and (2) and
10(1) to (4) of Council Directive 92/51/EEC on a second
general system for the recognition of professional education
and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC (1) uncon-
ditional and sufficiently precise so that, during the time that
elapsed between the expiry of the period prescribed for
transposing the directive and its belated transposition into
the national
law of a particular Member State (the host
Member State), they could be relied upon against an admin-
istrative body of that latter Member State, to which the
national legislation in force at the time when the directive
was transposed entrusted competence to grant permission
to pursue a particular regulated profession, by an individual
who, relying on the fact that he holds a diploma acquired in
another Member State and falling within the scope of appli-
cation of the above provisions of the directive asks to be
allowed, in application of those provisions, to take up and
pursue the profession in question in the host Member State?

2. If it is considered that, during the time that elapsed between
the expiry of the period prescribed for transposing Directive
92/51/EEC and its belated transposition into the national
law of a particular Member State (the host Member State),
the provisions of the directive were not capable of being
relied upon by an individual against an administrative body
of that Member State to which the national legislation in
force before the directive was transposed entrusted compe-
tence to grant permission to pursue a particular profession
either to graduates of the appropriate Technological Educa-
tion and Training Establishment or to holders of a foreign
diploma recognised as equivalent to a qualification from the
Technological Education and Training Establishments of
that State,
following a generally-applicable, procedure
described in the grounds of the reference, could that admin-
istrative body, taking into account the provisions of Articles
39 and 43 (formerly Articles 48 and 52) of the Treaty estab-
lishing the European Community, make acceptance of an
application by an individual who, relying on a qualification
acquired in another Member State, asked, during the above
period of time, to be allowed to take up and pursue the
above profession in the host Member State, depend on
previous recognition, in accordance with the general proce-
dure described above, of the equivalence of the qualification
held to qualifications awarded by Technological Education
and Training Establishments of that State, or should it have
taken steps itself to undertake a comparative examination of
the capacities attested to by the qualification submitted
against
required by
the knowledge and qualifications
national legislation and to reach a decision accordingly?

(1) OJ 1992 L 209, p. 25.

Action brought on 18 March 2004 by the Kingdom of
Spain against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland.

(Case C-145/04)

(2004/C 106/74)

An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 18 March 2004 by the Kingdom of
Spain, represented by N. Díaz Abad, acting as agent, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by enacting the ‘European Parliament (Repre-
sentation) Act 2003’, the United Kingdom has failed to
fulfil its obligations under articles 189, 190, 17 and 19 of
the EC Treaty, as well as the 1976 Act concerning the Elec-
tion of the Representatives of the European Parliament by
Direct Universal Suffrage, annexed to the Council Decision
of 20 September 1976 - 76/787/ECSC, EEE, EURATOM -
on direct elections to the European Parliament (1) and

— order

the United Kingdom to pay the costs of

these

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The legal grounds on which this application relies are the
following:

I. Violation of articles 189, 190 17 and 19 of the EC Treaty,

since

(a) The European Parliament

(Representation) Act 2003
(hereinafter EPRA 2003) recognizes the right to vote in
the elections to the European Parliament to persons
who are not nationals of a Member State (i.e. the quali-
fying Commonwealth citizens residing in Gibraltar) and,
the
therefore, do not have the status of citizens of
Union. In the Kingdom of Spain's view there is a clear
link between the citizenship of the Union and the right
to vote and stand in European parliamentary elections.

(b) The right to vote in European parliamentary elections is
regulated in article 190 EC. Therefore, the basis regu-
lation of this right is a Community competence. The
only persons who may exercise this right are the citizens
of the Union, because article 190 EC should be inter-
preted systematically with articles 17 and 19 EC.