Case C-262/05: Action brought on 22 June 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria
Date: 2005-08-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, European Commission, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, health care profession, national implementing measure, professional qualifications, recognition of diplomas, right of establishment, town-planning profession, vocational training

20.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/13

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Telekom-
Control-Kommission by application of 13 June 2005 in a
procedure concerning Telekom Austria AG

(Case C-256/05)

(2005/C 205/23)

(Language of the case: German)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by application of
the Telekom-Control-
Kommission of 13 June 2005, received at the Court Registry
on 17 June 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the procedure
concerning Telekom Austria AG on the following question:

Is Commission Decision C(2004)4070 final of 20 October
2004, by which the Telekom-Control-Kommission is required
under Article 7(4) of Directive 2002/21/EC (1) to withdraw the
draft decision notified on 20 July 2004, in Procedure M 9/03
M 9a/03 registered by the Commission under No AT/2004/
0090, relating to the market analysis in respect of the market
for ‘transit services in the fixed public telephone network’, valid
in the light of Article 253 of the EC Treaty, Articles 7(4), 8(2),
14, 15 and 16 of Directive 2002/21/EC,
the Commission
guidelines on market analysis and the markets recommendation
of the Commission?

(1) OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33.

Megyei Bíróság (County Court, Komárom-Esztergom) of 29
April 2005, received at the Court Registry on 22 June 2005,
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Lakép Kft.,
Pár-Bau Kft. and Rottelma Kft. and Komárom-Esztergom
Megyei Közigazgatási Hivatal on the following questions:

1. What, according to Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (1)
of 17 May 1977, are the criteria which allow a tax to be
characterised as a tax having the nature of a turnover tax?

2. Should a tax the taxable basis of which is the net turnover
corresponding to sales made or to services provided, after
deduction of the purchase price of the goods sold and the
value of the services provided by third parties, and also of
the material costs (or a certain proportion thereof), be
regarded as having the nature of a turnover tax?

3. Is Article 33 of the directive to be taken to mean that in the
Member States only a single tax having the nature of a turn-
over tax may be maintained?

4. In so far as two or more taxes having the nature of turnover taxes
are maintained in a Member State after accession to the European
Union, is the assessment, with retroactive effect, of a tax —
relating to a period before accession — contrary to Article
33 of the directive?

(1) OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.

Action brought on 22 June 2005 by the Commission of
the Republic of
the European Communities against

Austria

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Komárom-
Esztergom Megyei Bíróság by order of that court of 29
April 2005 in Lakél Kft., Pár-Bau Kft. and Rottelma Kft. v
Komárom-Esztergom Megyei Közigazgatási Hivatal

(Case C-261/05)

(2005/C 205/24)

(Language of the case: Hungarian)

(Case C-262/05)

(2005/C 205/25)

(Language of the case: German)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
the Komárom-Esztergom
pean Communities by order of

An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 June
2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by Hans Støvlbæk and Andreas Manville, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

C 205/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.8.2005

The applicant claims that the Court should:

the European Parliament and of

— declare that by not adopting the necessary laws, regulations
to transpose Directive
and administrative provisions
2001/19/EC (1) 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, or by not
informing the
Commission of such provisions, the Republic of Austria has
failed to fulfil
its obligations to implement that directive
fully;

— order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs of

the

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposition of the directive passed on 3
January 2003.

(1) OJ 2001 L 206, p. 1.

Action brought on 22 June 2005 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Federal Republic of
Germany

(Case C-264/05)

(2005/C 205/26)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against
the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities on 22 June 2005 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Hans Støvlbæk and Andreas
Manville, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

the European Parliament and of

— declare that by not adopting the necessary laws, regulations
to transpose Directive
and administrative provisions
2001/19/EC (1) 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-
informing the
tect, pharmacist and doctor, or by not
Commission of such provisions, the Federal Republic of
Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations to implement
fully that directive;

— order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs of

the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposition of the directive passed on 3
January 2003.

(1) OJ 2001 L 206, p. 1.