Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  19 January 2006  in Case C-330/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo:Colegio de Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales y Puertos v Administración del Estado (Freedom of movement for workers — Recognition of diplomas — Directive 89/48/EEC — Profession of engineer — Partial, restricted recognition of professional qualifications — Articles 39 EC and 43 EC)
Date: 2006-03-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: engineer, higher education, interpretation of the law, recognition of diplomas, vocational training

C 60/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.3.2006

— a Turkish worker who does not yet enjoy the right of free access to
any paid employment of his choice under that third indent must
be in legal employment without interruption in the host Member
State unless he can rely on a legitimate reason of the type laid
down in Article 6(2) to justify his temporary absence from the
labour force;

— Article 6(2) of Decision No 1/80 covers interruptions in periods
of legal employment, such as those at issue in the main proceed-
ings, and the relevant national authorities cannot, in this case,
dispute the right of the Turkish worker concerned to reside in the
host Member State.

(1) OJ C 200 of 23.08.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 19 January 2006

in Case C-240/03 P: Comunità montana della Valnerina v
Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Appeal — EAGGF — Withdrawal of financial aid —
Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 — Principle of
proportionality — Statement of reasons — Rights of the
defence — Cross-appeal — Designation of two persons to be
responsible for the execution of a project — Claim on only
one of them for repayment of all the aid — Discretionary
power of the Commission — Objective limits of the proceed-
ings before the Court of First Instance)

(2006/C 60/03)

(Language of the case: Italian)

In Case C-240/03 P: APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of
the Court of Justice brought on 28 May 2003, by Comunità
montana della Valnerina, (Avvocati: P. De Caterini, E. Cappelli
and A. Bandini), the other parties to the proceedings being:
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Cattab-
riga and L. Visaggio, assisted by Avvocato A. Dal Ferro), and
Italian Republic (Agent: I.M. Braguglia, assisted by Avvocato G.
Aiello), the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas,
President of the Chamber, J. Malenovský, S. von Bahr, A. Borg
Barthet and A. Ó Caoimh (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Kokott, Advo-
cate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 19
January 2006, in which it ruled:

1. The appeal and cross-appeal are dismissed;

2. The Comunità Montana della Valnerina shall pay the costs of the

appeal;

3. The Commission of the European Communities shall pay the costs

of the cross-appeal.

(1) OJ C 200 of 23.08.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 19 January 2006

in Case C-330/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal Supremo:Colegio de Ingenieros de Caminos,
Canales y Puertos v Administración del Estado (1)

for workers — Recognition of
(Freedom of movement
diplomas — Directive 89/48/EEC — Profession of engineer
— Partial, restricted recognition of professional qualifications
— Articles 39 EC and 43 EC)

(2006/C 60/04)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

In Case C-330/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Tribunal Supremo (Spain), made by
decision of 21 July 2003, received at the Court on 29 July
2003, in the proceedings Colegio de Ingenieros de Caminos,
Canales y Puertos v Administración del Estado, concerning
Giuliano Mauro Imo, the Court (First Chamber), composed of
P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann, N. Colneric,
E. Juhász and E. Levits (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate
General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 19 January
2006, in which it ruled as follows:

1. When the holder of a diploma awarded in one Member State
applies for permission to take up a regulated profession in another
Member State, the competent authorities of that Member State are
not precluded by Council Directive 89/48/EEC 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 from partly allowing that
application, if the holder of the diploma so requests, by limiting
the scope of the permission to those activities which that diploma
allows to be taken up in the Member State in which it was
obtained.

11.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/3

2. Articles 39 EC and 43 EC do not preclude a Member State from
not allowing partial taking-up of a profession, where shortcomings
in the education or training of the party concerned in relation to
that required in the host Member State may be effectively made up
for through the application of the compensatory measures provided
for in Article 4(1) of Directive 89/48. However, Articles 39 EC
and 43 EC do preclude a Member State from not allowing that
partial taking-up when the party concerned so requests and the
differences between the fields of activity are so great that in reality
a full programme of education and training is required, unless the
refusal for that partial taking-up is justified by overriding reasons
based on the general interest, suitable for securing the attainment
of the objective which they pursue and not going beyond what is
necessary in order to attain that objective.

(1) OJ C 226 of 20.9.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 12 January 2006

in Case C-494/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden in Senior Engineering
Investments BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (1)

company)

in favour of

(Directive 69/335 — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital
— National rules taxing a (subsidiary) company by way of
capital duty in respect of a contribution made by its parent
company (the grandparent
its
subsidiary (a sub-subsidiary company) — Capital duty —
‘to the share premium
Increase of capital — Payment
account’ — Increase in the assets of the company — Increase
in the value of shares — Provision of services by a member
— Payment made by a member of a member — Payment to a
subsidiary — ‘Real recipient’ — Levying of capital duty once
only (in the Community) — Article 52 of the EC Treaty
(now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) — Freedom of estab-
lishment — National practice exempting a (subsidiary)
capital company from taxation only if its subsidiary (sub-
is also established in that Member
subsidiary company)

State)

(2006/C 60/05)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

In Case C-494/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 EC from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Nether-

lands), made by decision of 21 November 2003, received at the
Court on 24 November 2003, in the proceedings Senior Engi-
neering Investments BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën — the
Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann (Rapporteur), Presi-
dent of the Chamber, N. Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, M.
Ilešič and E. Levits,,
Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate
General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
gave a judgment on 12 January 2006,
in which it ruled as
follows:

In circumstances such as those of
the main proceedings, Article
4(2)(b) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969
concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by
Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985, read in conjunction
with Article 2(1)
in its preamble,
thereof and the sixth recital
precludes a Member State from levying duty on a (subsidiary) capital
company in respect of a contribution paid by its parent company (the
grandparent company) to its subsidiary (a sub-subsidiary).

(1) OJ C 21, 24.01.2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 17 January 2006

in Case C-1/04 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
Bundesgerichtshof in Susanne Staubitz-Schreiber (1)

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Insolvency proceed-
ings — Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 — Applicability in
time — Court having jurisdiction)

(2006/C 60/06)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case C-1/04 Reference for a preliminary ruling under Article
234 EC from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), made by deci-
sion of 27 November 2003, received at the Court on 2 January
in the proceedings brought by Susanne Staubitz-
2004,
Schreiber — the Court
(Grand Chamber), composed of V.
Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas and
J. Malenovský, Presidents of Chambers, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puis-
sochet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.
Klučka, U. Lõhmus and E. Levits,
Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo
Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, for the Registrar, gave a
judgment on 17 January 2006, in which it ruled as follows: