Case C-506/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour administrative (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg) by judgment of that court of 7 December 2004, in the case of Graham J. Wilson against Conseil de l'Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg
Date: 2005-02-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, administrative court, capacity to exercise rights, equivalence of diplomas, interpretation of the law, lawyer, use of languages

5.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/15

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The period within which the directive had to be transposed
expired on 1 January 2003.

(1) OJ L 206, 31.7.2001, p. 1

3. Are the competent authorities of a Member State authorised
to subject the right of a lawyer of a Member State to prac-
tise on a permanent basis the profession of lawyer under his
home-country professional title in the areas of activity speci-
fied in Article 5 of Directive 98/5/EC to a requirement of
proficiency in the languages of that Member State?

4. In particular, may the competent authorities make the right
to practise the profession subject to the condition that the
lawyer sit an oral examination in all (or more than one) of
the three main languages of the host Member State for the
purpose of allowing the competent authorities to verify
whether the lawyer is proficient in the three languages, and
if so, what procedural guarantees, if any, are required?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour administra-
tive (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg) by judgment of that
court of 7 December 2004,
in the case of Graham J.
Wilson against Conseil de l'Ordre des avocats du barreau
de Luxembourg

(1) Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer
on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which
the qualification was obtained (OJ L 77, 14.3.1998, p. 36).

(Case C-506/04)

(2005/C 31/30)

(Language of the case: French)

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden by decision of that court of 10 December
2004 in the case of Magpar VI BV of Naarden against
Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by judgment of the Cour administrative
(Higher Administrative Court) Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, of
7 December 2004 received at
the Court Registry on
9 December 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Graham J. Wilson against Conseil de l'Ordre des avocats du
barreau de Luxembourg on the following questions:

1. Should Article 9 of Directive 98/5 (1) to facilitate practice of
the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member
State other than that in which the qualification was obtained
be interpreted as precluding appeal proceedings as provided
for under the Law of 10 August 1991, as amended by the
Law of 13 November 2002?

2. More particularly, do appeal bodies such as the Conseil
disciplinaire et administratif and the Conseil disciplinaire et
administratif d'appel constitute ‘a remedy before a court or
tribunal
in accordance with domestic law’ within the
meaning of Article 9 of Directive 98/5 and should Article 9
be interpreted as precluding a remedy which requires
to one or more bodies of this nature before it
referral
becomes possible to refer a matter on a question of law to a
‘court or tribunal’ within the meaning of Article 9?

and subject to a later ruling on the jurisdiction of the adminis-
trative courts and the admissibility of the action, the procedural
and substantive pleas of the parties remaining the same, on the
following questions:

(Case C-509/04)

(2005/C 31/31)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
(Supreme Court
of
10 December 2004, received at the Court Registry on 13
December 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Magpar
VI BV of Naarden against Staatssecretaris van Financiën on the
following questions:

the Netherlands), Netherlands,

of

1. Is Article 7(1)(bb) of Directive 69/335/EEC, (1) as amended
by Directive 73/79/EEC (2), to be interpreted as meaning
that if a company, within five years after the acquisition of
shares in the course of a share merger that is exempt from
capital duty, ceases
to hold those shares because the
company in which the shares were held has been the
subject of a merger, the requirements referred to in the
above-mentioned provision of the Directive are to apply to
the shares in the acquiring company?