Case C-264/05: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2001/19/EC — Mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other qualifications — Nurse, dentist, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)
Date: 2006-08-12
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Germany, 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

C 190/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.8.2006

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 June 2006
— Commission of the European Communities v Republic
of Finland

(Case C-249/05) (1)

Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of
the laws of
the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment,
as amended by Council Directive 2001/115/EC of 20 December
2001;

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles
28 EC and 49 EC — Sixth VAT Directive — Articles 21 and
22 — Obligation for a taxable person who is established in a
Member State other than the one where he carries out
taxable transactions to appoint a tax representative who is
not directly liable to pay VAT)

2. Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 193, 06.08.2005.

(2006/C 190/09)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: D. Triantafyllou and I. Koskinen, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: T. Pynnä and E.
Bygglin, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement
of Articles 28 and 49 EC and Articles 21 and 22 of Sixth
Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmo-
nisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover
taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of
legislation
(OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — National
assessment
imposing the obligation, for a taxable person who is not estab-
lished in a country, but who carries out taxable transactions
there, to appoint a tax representative who is not directly liable
to pay tax

Operative part of the judgment

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that, by imposing the appointment of a tax representative
on taxable persons not established in Finland, but who carry out
taxable transactions there and are established in another Member
State or in a non-member State with which a convention has been
concluded concerning mutual assistance of the competent authori-
ties as regards indirect taxes, the scope of which corresponds to the
scope defined in Council Directive 76/308/EEC of 15 March
1976 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to
certain levies, duties, taxes and other measures, as amended by
Council Directive 2001/44/EC of 15 June 2001, and in Council
Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003 of 7 October 2003 on adminis-
trative cooperation in the field of value added tax and repealing
Regulation (EEC) No 218/92, the Republic of Finland has failed
to fulfil its obligations under Articles 21 and 22 of Sixth Council

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 June 2006 —
the European Communities v Federal
Commission of
Republic of Germany

(Case C-264/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
2001/19/EC — Mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates
and other qualifications — Nurse, dentist, veterinary
surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor — Failure
to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2006/C 190/10)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: A. Manville and H. Støvlbæk, Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: C.
Schulze-Bahr, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
transpose within the prescribed period, Directive 2001/19/EC
of the European Parliament and 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 quali-
fications and Council Directives 77/452/EEC, 77/453/EEC,
78/1027/EEC,
78/686/EEC,
80/154/EEC,
85/432/EEC,
85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC concerning the professions of
nurse responsible for general care, dental practitioner, veter-
inary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor (OJ
2001 L 206, p. 1)

78/1026/EEC,
85/384/EEC,

78/687/EEC,
80/155/EEC,

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/7

Operative part of the judgment

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Court hereby:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
ensure the complete transposition of Directive 2001/19/EC of the
the Council of 14 May 2001
European Parliament and of
amending Council Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC on the
general system for the recognition of professional qualifications
and
77/453/EEC,
78/686/EEC, 78/687/EEC, 78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC,
85/432/EEC,
80/154/EEC,
85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC concerning the professions of nurse
responsible for general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon,
midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor, the Federal Republic of
Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

80/155/EEC,

85/384/EEC,

77/452/EEC,

Directives

Council

2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 205, 20.08.2005.

Appeal brought on 26 April 2006 by Alecansan SL against
Instance (First
the judgment of
Chamber) delivered on 7 February 2006 in Case T-202/03:
Alecansan SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM)

the Court of First

(Case C-196/06 P)

(2006/C 190/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Alecansan SL (represented by: P. Merino Baylos and
A. Velázquez Ibáñez, abogados)

found that

The appellant submits that the Court of First Instance erred in
its interpretation of article 8.1.b) of Regulations No 40/94 (1)
when it
there was no likelihood of confusion
between the two marks on the grounds that, despite the high
degree of similarity from a phonetic and a visual point of view,
the goods and services of the trade mark applied for are not
similar to the services covered by the appellant's mark. The
appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance failed to
take account of several important factors when determining the
existence of the likelihood of confusion.

(1) OJ L 11, 14.1.1994, p.1

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger
Finanzsenat Salzburg-Aigen (Austria)
lodged on 8 May
2006 — Schwaninger Martin, Viehhandel — Viehexport v
Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen

(Case C-207/06)

(2006/C 190/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Unabhängiger Finanzsenat Salzburg-Aigen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Martin Schwaninger, Viehhandel — Viehexport

Defendant: Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market, CompUSA Management Co.

Questions referred

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

the Court of First

the First Chamber of

— annul the judgment of 7 February 2006 (Case T-2002/03)
of
Instance
dismissing the action for annulment filed against the Reso-
lution dated 24 March 2003 of the First Appeal Chamber
of the Office for Harmonisation of the Internal Market
(OHIM) in case R-711/2002-1, dismissing the opposition
filed by Alecansan SL against community trade mark appli-
cation No 849.497 ‘COMPUSA’.

1. Is Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 (1) of
18 March 1998 to be understood as meaning that Chapter
VII 48 point 7(b) of the annex to Directive 91/628/EEC (2)
of 19 November 1991 applies analogously in the case of
transport by sea on a regular and direct link between a
geographical point of the Community and a geographical
point in a third country by means of vehicles loaded on to
vessels without unloading of the animals?

2. If question one is answered in the affirmative, is Chapter VII
48 point 7(b) of the annex to Directive 91/628/EEC to be
in the case of transport of
understood as meaning that,
bovine animals, the journey time by sea does not comply
with the rule in point 4(d) if, after 14 hours of travel, the
animals are not given a rest period of at least one hour?