Case C-505/04: Action brought on 8 December 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Date: 2005-02-05
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Gibraltar, United Kingdom, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, health care profession, professional qualifications, recognition of diplomas, right of establishment, town-planning profession

C 31/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.2.2005

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal-
tungsgericht by order of that court of 3 August 2004 in
the case of Ergün Torun against Stadt Augsburg, interested
interest
parties: 1.
Landesan-
before

the representative of

the national

the

2.

Bundesverwaltungsgericht
waltschaft Bayern

(Case C-502/04)

(2005/C 31/28)

(Language of the case: German)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsgericht
of 3 August 2004, received at
the Court Registry on 7
December 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ergün
Torun against Stadt Augsburg, interested parties: 1. the repre-
sentative of the national interest before the Bundesverwaltungs-
gericht 2. Landesanwaltschaft Bayern received at
the Court
Registry on 7 December 2004 for a preliminary ruling on the
following questions:

1. Where a Turkish worker has been legally employed in the
Federal Republic of Germany for more than three years,
does his child who has reached the age of majority and has
completed a course of vocational training as an industrial
mechanic by passing the final apprenticeship examination
also forfeit his right of residence that is the corollary of the
right under the second sentence of Article 7 of Decision No
1/80 of the EEC/Turkey Association Council ('Decision No
1/80') to respond to any offer of employment – apart from
cases under Article 14 of Decision No 1/80 or where the
host Member State is left without legitimate reason for a
significant period of time – where

(a) the child has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment
totalling three years for aggravated robbery and drug
offences, the sentence has not been suspended (even at a
later date) and the whole of the sentence has been
served by offsetting the period spent on remand
pending trial?

(b) the child has himself pursued employment as a worker
within the legitimate labour
the Federal
Republic of Germany and has thereby acquired in his
own right a right of residence that is the corollary of the
right of free access to employment under the second or
third indents of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80, and
has subsequently forfeited that right?

force of

Is such forfeiture caused by

(aa) the fact that he left his last place of employment as
a result of drug addiction-induced summary termi-
nation of his employment by his employer?

(bb) the fact that, following a period of ill health of
more than three months, he did not register with
the competent authority as unemployed for a
period of one month between the end of his inca-
pacity for work and his arrest for the commission
of a criminal offence?

for

(cc) the fact that he was sentenced to a term of impri-
sonment
aggravated
totalling three years
robbery and drug offences, that the sentence was
not suspended (even at a later date), that the whole
of the sentence was served by offsetting the period
spent on remand pending trial and that during that
time he was not available to the legitimate labour
force but, approximately three months after his
release, did find employment again with a firm on
a temporary basis, without
then having any
national right of residence?

2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: Does
a Turkish national forfeit his right of residence that is the
corollary of the right of free access to employment under
the second or third indents of Article 6(1) of Decision No
1/80 in the circumstances described above in Question 1b)?

Action brought on 8 December 2004 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-505/04)

(2005/C 31/29)

(Language of procedure: English)

An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 December
2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by Hans Støvlbæk, acting as agent, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

The Applicant requests the Court to:

— declare that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-
tive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 14 May 2001 amending Council Directives
89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC on the general system for the
recognition of professional qualifications and Council Direc-
tives 77/452/EEC, 77/453/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/687/EEC,
78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC, 80/154/EEC, 80/155/EEC,
85/384/EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC
concerning the professions of nurse responsible for general
care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, archi-
tect, pharmacist and doctor (1) with regard to Gibraltar or,
in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the
Commission, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil
its obligations under
Article 16 of this Directive;

— order the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland to pay the costs.

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?