Case C-340/06: Action brought on 4 August 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
Date: 2006-10-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Austria, European Commission, access to information, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, dissemination of information, environmental policy, national implementing measure, right to information

14.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/3

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di
Stato (Italy) lodged on 17 July 2006 — Consiglio Nazionale
degli Ingegneri v Ministero della Giustizia, Marco Caval-
lera

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Arthur Wiedemann

(Case C-311/06)

(2006/C 249/06)

Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg

Language of the case: Italian

Questions referred

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Consiglio Nazionale degli Ingegneri

Respondents: Ministero della Giustizia, Marco Cavallera

Questions referred

1. Does Directive 89/48/EEC (1) apply to an Italian national
who: (a) obtained a three-year degree in engineering in Italy;
(b) obtained recognition of the Italian qualification as being
corresponding Spanish qualification;
equivalent
(c) obtained registration in the Spanish register of engineers
but never pursued that profession in Spain; (d) applied, on
the basis of the Spanish recognition of equivalence,
for
registration in the register of engineers in Italy?

to the

2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is a
domestic provision (Article 1 of Legislative Decree No 115
of 1992) that does not permit recognition in Italy of a quali-
fication of a Member State which in turn is exclusively the
result of recognition of a previous Italian qualification
compatible with Directive 89/48/EEC?

(1) OJ L 19, p. 16.

1. Are Articles 1(2)

(4)

and

and 8(2)

of Directive
91/439/EEC (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the with-
drawal of a driving licence by administrative authorities in
the State of residence on account of unfitness to drive does
not preclude another Member State from granting a driving
licence, and that in principle the State of residence must
recognise such a driving licence?

2. Are Articles 1(2), 7(1a) in conjunction with Annex III, and
8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439/EEC to be interpreted as
meaning that there is no obligation on the State of residence
to recognise a driving licence which, following the with-
drawal of his driving licence by his State of residence, a
person has obtained by means of a fraud practised upon the
driving licence authorities of the issuing State and without
proof that he has become fit to drive again, or who has
obtained it by means of colluding with employees of the
authorities of the issuing State?

3. Are Articles 1(2) and 8(2) and (4) of Directive 91/439/EEC
to be interpreted as meaning that where its administrative
authorities have withdrawn a driving licence the State of
residence may temporarily suspend recognition or prohibit
the use of a driving licence issued by another Member State
while the issuing State is considering whether to withdraw
that driving licence, it having been obtained fraudulently?

(1) OJ L 237, p 1

Action brought on 4 August 2006 — Commission of the
European Communities v Republic of Austria

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
gericht Sigmaringen (Germany) lodged on 28 July 2006 —
Arthur Wiedemann v Land Baden-Württemberg

(Case C-329/06)

(2006/C 249/07)

Language of the case: German

Parties

(Case C-340/06)

(2006/C 249/08)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: U. Wölker, acting as Agent)

Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen

Defendant: Republic of Austria

C 249/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.10.2006

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to:

— declare that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive
2003/4/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental
information
Directive
repealing
90/313/EEC (1), or by not informing the Commission of
such provisions, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil
its obligations under that directive;

Council

and

98/365/EC of 1 October 1997 (1) on the ground of inade-
quate reasoning and failure to apply the concept of State
aid;

— endorse the remainder of the judgment of the Court of First
Instance, give final
judgment without referring the case
back to the Court of First Instance, and affirm the legality
of Commission Decision 98/365/EC of 1 October 1997;

— order the applicants at first instance to pay the entire costs.

— order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposition of the directive expired
on 14 February 2005.

The applicant puts forward three grounds of appeal.

(1) OJ 2003 L 41, pp. 26-32

Appeal brought on 4 August 2006 by Chronopost SA
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third
Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 7 June
2006 in Case T-613/97 Union française de l'express (Ufex)
and Others v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-341/06 P)

(2006/C 249/09)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Chronopost SA (represented by: D. Berlin, avocat)

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities, French Republic, La Poste, Union française de
l'express (Ufex), DHL International SA, Federal express interna-
tional (France) SNC, CRIE SA

By its first ground of appeal, the applicant alleges an infringe-
ment, by the Court of First Instance, of the general principles
of Community law and, in particular, of the right to a fair trial
in so far as that Court did not provide all of the necessary guar-
antees of impartiality as the judge who acted as Rapporteur in
the contested judgment of 7 June 2006 was also a member of
the Chamber which adopted the judgment — annulled by the
Court — in Case T-613/97 Ufex and Others v Commission
[2000] ECR II-4055.

By its second ground of appeal, the applicant alleges that the
Court exceeded its competence and infringed Articles 230 EC
and 253 EC in that it carried out, in the guise of a review of
the statement of reasons provided, a review of the substance of
Commission Decision 98/365/EC of 1 October 1997
concerning alleged State aid granted by France to SFMI-Chrono-
post (OJ 1998, L 164, p. 37) and of the allegedly manifest
errors of assessment which the Commission made in the exer-
cise of its discretion. The applicant also alleges that the Court
substituted its own assessment for that of the Commission,
thereby exceeding its competence and causing another infringe-
ment of Articles 230 and 253 EC.

By its third ground of appeal, the applicant finally alleges that
the Court made several errors of law by comparing the conduct
of a public undertaking benefiting from a reserved sector to
that of a private undertaking, by applying to the creation of an
undertaking by a parent company the case-law concerning the
relationships between parent companies and existing subsidi-
aries and concluding that SFMI was given an advantage,
resulting from the transfer to its books of Postadex's customers.
For these various reasons, the Court infringed Article 87 EC.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1) OJ 1998 L 164, p. 37

— quash the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 June
annuls Commission Decision

2006 inasmuch as

it