Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 7 October 2004 in Case C-255/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias): Panagiotis Markopoulos and Others v Ypourgos Anaptyxis and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Eighth Directive 84/253/EEC — Articles 11 and 15 — Approval of persons responsible for statutory auditing of accounting documents — Possibility of approving persons who have not passed an examination of professional competence — Conditions on which nationals of other Member States may be approved)
Date: 2004-12-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: accountant, equivalence of diplomas, examination, financial control, interpretation of the law, management, professional qualifications

4.12.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/1

I

(Information)

COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF JUSTICE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

4. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay one

(Second Chamber)

of 7 October 2004

fifth of the costs.

(1) OJ C 186 of 30.6.2001.

in Case C-153/01: Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the
European Communities (1)

(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — Financial years 1996 to
1998 — Decision 2001/137/EC)

(2004/C 300/01)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

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

In Case C-153/01: action for partial annulment under Article
230 EC, brought on 9 April 2001, by Kingdom of Spain
(Agent: S. Ortiz Vaamonde) against Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities (Agent: S. Pardo Quintillán) — the Court
(Second Chamber), composed of: C. W. A. Timmermans, Presi-
J. N. Cunha Rodrigues,
dent of the Chamber, C. Gulmann,
R. Schintgen and F. Macken (Rapporteur),
Judges; P. Léger,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
7 October 2004, in which it:

1. Annuls Commission Decision 2001/137/EC of 5 February 2001
excluding from community financing certain expenditure incurred
by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the Euro-
pean Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) in so
far as it applies to the Kingdom of Spain a financial correction
corresponding to the sum of 2 426 259 870 ESP in respect of
interest due under the additional milk levy scheme;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay four fifths of the costs;

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 7 October 2004

in Case C-255/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Simvoulio tis Epikratias): Panagiotis Markopoulos and
Others v Ypourgos Anaptyxis and Others (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling — Eighth Directive
84/253/EEC — Articles 11 and 15 — Approval of persons
responsible for statutory auditing of accounting documents
— Possibility of approving persons who have not passed an
examination of professional competence — Conditions on
which nationals of other Member States may be approved)

(2004/C 300/02)

(Language of the case: Greek)

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

In Case C-255/01: reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece),
made by decision of 12 June 2001, received at the Court on 3
July 2001, in the proceedings: between Panagiotis Markopoulos
and Others and Ypourgos Anaptyxis, Soma Orkoton Elegkton,
interveners: Georgios Samothrakis and Others, and Christos
Panagiotidis — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P.
Jann, President of
the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, K.
Lenaerts, S. von Bahr and K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), Judges;
A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 October
2004, in which it has ruled:

C 300/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.12.2004

for

the

responsible

1. Article 15 of Eighth Council Directive 84/253/EEC of 10 April
1984 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty on the approval of
persons
statutory audits of
carrying out
accounting documents permits all the Member States to approve
persons who satisfy the conditions laid down in that article,
namely, persons who have the qualifications in the Member State
concerned to carry out the statutory auditing of the documents
referred to in Article 1(1) and who did so until the date fixed in
Article 15, without their being required first to have passed an
examination of professional competence.

Nevertheless, it is contrary to Article 15 for a Member State to
exercise the power provided for therein after the expiry of a period
of a year starting to run from the date of application of the
national provisions transposing the directive, which date may in
no circumstances fall after 1 January 1990.

2. Article 11 of the Eighth Directive enables a host Member State to
approve, for the purpose of carrying out the statutory auditing of
accounting documents, professional persons already approved in
another Member State, without requiring them to pass an exami-
nation of professional competence, if the competent authorities of
the host Member State consider their qualifications to be equiva-
lent to those required under the national legislation of the host
Member State, in accordance with the directive.

(1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 5 October 2004

Lörrach (Germany), made by orders of 26 September 2001,
received at the Court on 12 October 2001, in the proceedings
between Bernhard Pfeiffer (C-397/01), Wilhelm Roith (C-398/
01), Albert Süß (C-399/01), Michael Winter (C-400/01), Klaus
Nestvogel
(C-401/01), Roswitha Zeller (C-402/01), Matthias
Döbele (C-403/01) and Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband
Waldshut eV — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of: V.
Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann,
J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Presidents of Cham-
bers, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), F. Macken, N. Colneric,
S. von Bahr and K. Lenaerts, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 October 2004, in which
it has ruled:

1.

(a) Article 2 of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989
on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in
the safety and health of workers at work and Article 1(3) of
Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993
concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time
must be construed as meaning that the activity of emergency
workers,
in the framework of an emergency
medical service, such as that at issue before the national court,
falls within the scope of the directives.

carried out

(b) On a proper construction, the concept of ‘road transport’ in
Article 1(3) of Directive 93/104 does not encompass the
activity of an emergency medical service, even though the latter
includes using a vehicle and accompanying a patient on the
journey to hospital.

in Joined Cases C-397/01 to C-403/01 (reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Lörrach): Bern-
hard Pfeiffer (C-397/01), Wilhelm Roith (C-398/01), Albert
Süß (C-399/01), Michael Winter (C-400/01), Klaus Nest-
(C-401/01), Roswitha Zeller (C-402/01), Matthias
vogel
Döbele (C-403/01) v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband
Waldshut eV (1)

individually if

2. The first indent of Article 18(1)(b)(i) of Directive 93/104 is to be
construed as requiring consent to be expressly and freely given by
each worker
the 48-hour maximum period of
weekly working time, as laid down in Article 6 of the directive, is
to be validly extended. In that connection, it is not sufficient that
the relevant worker's employment contract refers to a collective
agreement which permits such an extension.

(Social policy — Protection of the health and safety of
workers — Directive 93/104/EC — Scope — Emergency
workers in attendance in ambulances in the framework of an
emergency service run by the German Red Cross — Defini-
tion of ‘road transport’ — Maximum weekly working time
— Principle — Direct effect — Derogation — Conditions)

(2004/C 300/03)

(Language of the case: German)

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

3. Article 6, point 2, of Directive 93/104 must be interpreted, in
circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, as precluding
legislation in a Member State the effect of which, as regards
periods of duty time (‘Arbeitsbereitschaft’) completed by emergency
workers in the framework of the emergency medical service of a
body such as the Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, is to permit, including by
means of a collective agreement or works agreement based on such
an agreement, the 48-hour maximum period of weekly working
time laid down by that provision to be exceeded;

In Joined Cases C-397/01 to C-403/01: reference for a preli-
minary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Arbeitsgericht

— Article 6(2) of Directive 93/104 fulfils all the conditions

necessary for it to have direct effect;