Removal from the Register of Case C-47/04
Date: 2005-06-25
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, France, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, approximation of laws, dangerous substance, labelling, packaging

C 155/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.6.2005

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the
Court should:

1. declare that, by altering the demarcation of the Moura,
Mourão e Barrancos
(SPA),
Special
excluding from it areas providing a habitat for species of
wild birds for whose protection that SPA was designated,
the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 4(1) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC (1) of 2
April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds;

Protection Area

2. order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1. The Moura, Mourão e Barrancos Special Protection Area
(SPA) was established by the Portuguese Government on 23
September 1999 by Decree-Law No 384-B/99 of 23
September 1999. The boundaries of that SPA are laid down
in Annex XXIV to that piece of legislation.

2. It is clear from the information provided by the Portuguese
authorities that the alteration of the demarcation of the
Moura, Mourão e Barrancos SPA by Decree-Law No
141/2002 of 20 May 2002 has no scientific basis. However,
it follows from the case-law of the Court of Justice that
species whose protection was considered necessary can be
excluded only on scientific grounds.

(1) OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1.

Action brought on 29 April 2005 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg

(Case C-193/05)

(2005/C 155/19)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against
the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities on 29 April 2005 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by D. Maidani and H. Støvlbæk,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the
Court should:

(1) declare that, by maintaining, for the purpose of establishing
oneself under the home-country professional title, language
knowledge requirements, a prohibition on being a person
authorised to accept service and the obligation to repro-
duce each year the certificate from the home Member State,
the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obli-
gations under Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parlia-

ment 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 qualifica-
tion was obtained, (1)
in particular Articles 2, 3 and 5
thereof;

(2) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The introduction of language testing as a prerequisite for a
European lawyer to be entered in the register of the Ordre des
avocats is contrary to the general objective of the Directive,
which is to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer in a
Member State other than that in which the professional qualifi-
cation was obtained and infringes inter alia Article 3(2) of that
directive, under which the host Member State is to the register
the lawyer ‘upon presentation of a certificate attesting to his
registration with the competent authority in the home Member
State’.

The prohibition on being a person authorised to accept service
is contrary to Article 5(1), under which a European lawyer
‘carries on the same professional activities as a lawyer prac-
tising under the relevant professional title used in the host
Member State’.

In its response to the reasoned opinion,
the Luxembourg
Government states that it has taken due note of the Commis-
sion's argument that the requirement to reproduce each year
the certificate from the home Member State constitutes an
unjustified administrative burden having regard to the provi-
sions of the Directive.

The Commission has found, however, that, contrary to the
terms of the Directive, for the reasons stated in the reasoned
opinion, at the present time that requirement remains in the
text of the Law of 13 November 2002, which implements
Directive 98/5 in Luxembourg law.

(1) OJ 1998 L 77, of 14.03.1998, p. 36.

Removal from the Register of Case C-47/04 (1)

(2005/C 155/20)

(Language of the case: French)

By order of 14 February 2005,
the Fifth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities
ordered the removal
from the Register of Case C-47/04:
Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.

the President of

(1) OJ C 71 of 20.03.2004.