Case C-274/05: Action brought on 4 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
Date: 2005-09-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Greece, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, recognition of diplomas

C 229/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.9.2005

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission complains that the Hellenic Republic did not
transpose correctly into its national legal system the provisions
of Regulation No 4055/86, as interpreted by the Court of
(2) Case C-18/93
Justice (Case C-381/93 Commission v France,
Corsica Ferries Italia, (3) and Case C-435/00 Geha Naftiliaki (4)).

(2) Have the provisions of Articles 10 and 11 cited above
recognised the equivalence of the two diplomas (in archi-
tecture and civil engineering) only to the extent that both
to
allow access to the profession of architect subject
successful completion of a special examination giving enti-
tlement to pursue the profession of architect?

(1) OJ L 223 of 21.08.1985, p. 15.

(1) OJ L 378 of 31.12.1986, p. 1.
(2) [1994] ECR I-5145.
(3) [1998] ECR I-1783.
(4) [2002] ECR I-10615.

Action brought on 4 July 2005 by the Commission of the
European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di
Stato by order of that court of 18 January 2005 in (1)
Francesco Rauty v Ministero per i Beni Culturali e
Ambientali and Soprintendenza B.A.A. di Firenze, Prato e
Pistoia;
intervener: Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri;
and (2) Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Pistoia v
Francesco Rauty and Ministero per i Beni e le Attività
Culturali; intervener: Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri

(Case C-274/05)

(2005/C 229/13)

(Language of the case: Greek)

(Case C-271/05)

(2005/C 229/12)

(Language of the case: Italian)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Consiglio di Stato (Italy) of
18 January 2005, received at the Court Registry on 30 June
2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between (1)
Francesco Rauty against Ministero per
i Beni Culturali e
Ambientali and Soprintendenza B.A.A. di Firenze, Prato e
Pistoia; intervener: Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri; and (2)
Ordine degli Ingegneri della Provincia di Pistoia against Fran-
cesco Rauty and Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali;
Ingegneri on the
intervener: Consiglio Nazionale degli
following questions:

(1) Are ‘laurea in architettura’ diplomas and ‘laurea in ingeg-
neria civile’ diplomas awarded by Italian universities and
university institutes to be regarded as equivalent in respect
of Italy, as provided for in Articles 10 and 11 of Directive
85/384/EEC of 10 June 1985, (1) so that graduates in civil
engineering with the relevant qualification are entitled to
pursue the profession of architect and therefore to carry
out all the tasks and assignments which any internal provi-
sions of the State allow only the architects' profession to
perform; or

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 July 2005
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Georgios Zavvos and Hans Støvlbæk, members of its Legal
Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that:

— by failing to recognise the diplomas awarded by the
competent authorities of another Member State in the
context of studies on a franchise basis, under licence,

— by providing for

the imposition of compensatory
measures in more cases than those allowed by the direc-
tive,

— by entrusting to the Council for the Recognition of
Professional Equivalence of Higher-Education Titles
examination as to whether ‘the educational establish-
ment in which the applicant received his professional
education and training should be classified as higher
education’ and whether ‘the applicant has the necessary
professional experience, in a case where the duration of
the education falls short by at least one year from that
required in Greece in order to exercise that profession’,

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/7

— by failing to take into account the professional recogni-
tion of professional qualifications acquired in another
Member State as regards employment
in the public
sector and registration in the Technical Chamber of
Greece, and

longer intends to take up milk production and also does not
intend to grant a lease to another milk producer, in confor-
mity with Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 857/84, (1) as
amended by Regulation (EEC) No 590/85, (2) and with
Article 7(2), (3) and (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1546/88? (3)

— by requiring the production of supporting documents
certified by the Greek Consular authorities and trans-
lated by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs or by a lawyer
for
registration in the Technical
Chamber of Greece,

the purposes of

its obligations
the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil
under Articles 1, 3, 4, 7, 8 and 10 of Council Directive
89/48/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988 on a general system
for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded
on completion of professional education and training of at
least three years' duration

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission complains that the Hellenic Republic did not
transpose correctly into its national legal system the provisions
of Directive 89/48/EEC.

(1) OJ L 19 of 24.1.1989.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
gericht Sigmaringen by order of that court of 12 May
2005 in Alois Kibler jun. v Land Baden-Württemberg,
joined parties: Manfred Ott and Konrad Leiprecht

(Case C-275/05)

(2005/C 229/14)

(Language of the case: German)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht Sigmar-
ingen (Administrative Court, Sigmaringen) of 12 May 2005,
received at the Court Registry on 6 July 2005, for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings between Alois Kibler jun. and Land
joined parties: Manfred Ott and Konrad
Baden-Württemberg,
Leiprecht, on the following questions:

1. Is national

legislation of a Member State, which provides
that on the return of a leased part of a holding the corre-
sponding reference quantity for the areas of the tenant's
holding used for milk production is to revert to the landlord
along with that part of the holding even if the landlord, at
the time it is so returned, is no longer a milk producer, no

2. If the answer to the first question should be in the negative:
legislation of a Member State, which provides
Is national
that on the ending of a lease the reference quantity is to be
retained in its entirety by the tenant of that part of the
holding, in conformity with Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC)
No 857/84, as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 590/85,
and with Article 7(4) of Regulation (EEC) No 1546/88 even
where the lease has been voluntarily brought to an end?

(1) OJ 1984 L 90, p. 13.
(2) OJ 1985 L 68, p. 1.
(3) OJ 1988 L 139, p. 12.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État
(France), acting in a judicial capacity, by order of that
court of 18 May 2005 in Société thermale d'Eugénie-Les-
Bains v Ministère de l'Economie, des Finances et de l'In-
dustrie

(Case C-277/05)

(2005/C 229/15)

(Language of the case: French)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of
the Conseil d'Etat (France),
acting in a judicial capacity, of 18 May 2005, received at the
Court Registry on 5 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings between Société thermale d'Eugénie-Les-Bains and
Ministère de l'Economie, des Finances et de l'Industrie on the
following question:

Must sums paid as deposits in the context of sales contracts in
relation to the provision of services which are subject to value
added tax be regarded, where the purchaser makes use of the
cancellation option available to him and those sums are
retained by the vendor, as remuneration for the reservation
service and, as such, subject to value added tax, or as cancella-
tion payments made to compensate for the loss suffered as a
result of the default of the customer, which have no direct
connection with any service provided for consideration and, as
such, are not subject to value added tax?