Case C-43/06: Action brought on  27 January 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic
Date: 2006-04-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Portugal, access to a profession, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, architecture, recognition of diplomas

C 86/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.4.2006

Action brought on 27 January 2006 by the Commission of
the Portuguese
the European Communities

against

Republic

(Case C-43/06)

(2006/C 86/20)

(Language of the case: Portuguese)

4 of Directive 85/834, the Member State must recognise the
qualification, allowing the architect from the home Member
State to practise his or her profession using the title of archi-
tect.

(1) Council Directive 85/384/EEC of 10 June 1985 on the mutual
recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal
including measures to facilitate the
qualifications in architecture,
effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to
provide services (OJ 1985 L 223, p. 15).

Justice of

An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
the Court of
the European Communities on 27
January 2006 by the Commission of the European Commu-
nities,
represented by Hans Støvlbæk and Pedro Andrade,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

qualifications

— declare that the Portuguese Republic, by requiring persons
who hold professional
in architecture
awarded by other Member States to pass an admission test
to the Portuguese Institute of Architects when they are not
members of the relevant professional body of any other
Member State, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Arti-
cles 2 and 10 of Directive 85/384/EEC; (1)

— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission is bringing Treaty infringement proceedings
against the Portuguese Republic for failing fully to implement
Directive 85/384.

Although the Directive was implemented by Decreto-Lei No
14/90 of 8 January, the publication of Decreto-Lei No 176/98
was a retrograde step.

On the basis of Decreto-Lei No 176/98, the Portuguese Insti-
tute of Architects is requiring architects trained in other
Member States, who are not registered with the respective
professional bodies of those States, to pass an admission test.

Architects from other Member States who are not registered
with their respective professional bodies must therefore take
examinations in architecture in the host State, since they
cannot practise their profession in Portugal unless they are
registered with the Institute of Portuguese Architects.

For the Commission, that situation is unlawful, since it
is
contrary to the provision made by Directive 85/384. The direc-
tive does not draw a distinction, as the Portuguese State does,
between an academic qualification and a professional
title.
Recognition of diplomas under the sectoral directives is auto-
matic. If the training fulfils the requirements of Articles 3 and

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
des Landes Brandenburg by order of that court of 12
October 2005 in Gerlach & Co. mbH v Hauptzollamt
Frankfurt (Oder)

(Case C-44/06)

(2006/C 86/21)

(Language of the case: German)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities by order of the Finanzgericht des Landes
Brandenburg (Finance Court of
the Land of Brandenburg)
(Germany) of 12 October 2005, received at the Court Registry
on 30 January 2006, for a preliminary ruling in the proceed-
ings between Gerlach & Co. mbH and Hauptzollamt Frankfurt
(Oder) on the following question:

Is a national customs administration entitled to enter duties in
its accounts before granting the period provided for in Article
11a(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1062/87, (1) as amended by
Regulation (EEC) No 1429/90, (2) with regard to the place
where the offence or irregularity has been committed and to
make that period legally binding for the first
time during
appeal proceedings?

(1) OJ L 107, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 137, p. 21.