Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Case C-102/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart): Ingeborg Beuttenmüller v Land Baden-Württemberg (Freedom of movement for workers — Recognition of diplomas — Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC — Primary and secondary school teachers — Holder of a diploma of post-secondary studies of two years' duration — Conditions for the exercise of the profession)
Date: 2004-04-30
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, higher education, interpretation of the law, recognition of diplomas, teacher, vocational training

C 118/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

goods which is let pursuant to Article 20 of the Sixth Directive
77/388.

(Fifth Chamber)

29 April 2004

in Joined Case C-487/01 and C-7/02 (reference for a preli-
minary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden):
Gemeente Leusden (C-487/01), Holin Groep BV cs (C-7/02)
v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (1)

(Turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax —
Article 17 of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC — Deduction
of input tax — Amendment of national
legislation with-
drawing the right to opt for taxation of lettings of immovable
property — Adjustment of deductions — Application to
current leases)

(2004/C 118/31)

Where a Member State withdraws the right to opt for taxation of
lettings of immovable property, it must take account of the legiti-
mate expectation of
its taxable persons when determining the
arrangements for implementing the legislative amendment. The
repeal of legislation from which a taxable person has derived an
advantage in paying less tax, without
there being any abuse,
cannot however, as such, breach a legitimate expectation based on
Community law.

2) Article 5(7)(a) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 concerns the appli-
cation of goods by a taxable person for the purposes of his busi-
ness and not a legislative amendment withdrawing the right to
transaction which is generally
opt
exempt.

for taxation of a financial

(1) OJ C 44 of 16.2.2002
OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002

(Language of the case: Dutch)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
the European Court Reports)

(Fifth Chamber)

of 29 April 2004

In Joined Cases C-487/01 and C-7/02: REFERENCE to the
Court under Article 234 EC from the Hoge Raad der Neder-
landen (Netherlands) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Gemeente Leusden (C-487/
01), Holin Groep BV cs (C-7/02) and Staatssecretaris van
Financiën - on the interpretation of Articles 5(7)(a), 17 and
20(2) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May
1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States
relating to turnover taxes – Common system of value added
tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) and the
principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal
certainty - the Court, composed of: P. Jann, acting for the Presi-
dent of the Fifth Chamber, A. Rosas (Rapporteur) and S. von
Bahr, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Prin-
cipal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
29 April 2004, in which it has ruled:

1) Articles 17 and 20(2)

of

the Sixth Council Directive
77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws
of
the Member States relating to turnover taxes – Common
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, interpreted
in accordance with the principles of the protection of legitimate
expectations and legal certainty do not preclude the withdrawal by
a Member State of the right to opt for taxation of lettings of
immovable property which results in the adjustment of deductions
made in respect of the immovable property acquired as capital

in Case C-102/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart): Ingeborg Beuttenmüller
v Land Baden-Württemberg (1)

(Freedom of movement
for workers — Recognition of
diplomas — Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC —
teachers — Holder of a
Primary and secondary school
diploma of post-secondary studies of two years' duration —
Conditions for the exercise of the profession)

(2004/C 118/32)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published in
the European Court Reports)

In Case C-102/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart (Germany) for a preli-
minary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court

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.