Case C-193/05: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom of establishment — Directive 98/5/EC — Practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained — Prior examination of knowledge of the languages of the host Member State — Prohibition on being a person authorised to accept service (domiciliataire) on behalf of companies — Requirement to produce each year the certificate of registration with the competent authority of the home Member State)
Date: 2006-11-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Luxembourg, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, capacity to exercise rights, equivalence of diplomas, lawyer, right of establishment

C 281/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.11.2006

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie

(Bestrijdingsmiddelenwet), as amended by the Law of 6 February
2003, corresponds to all the characteristics of a ‘review’ within the
meaning of Article 8(3) of Directive 91/414, in particular those
referred to in paragraphs 53 and 54 of the present judgment.

Defendant: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

Intervener: LTO Nederland

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor
het Bedrijfsleven — Interpretation of Articles 4, 8(2) and (3)
and 23 of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991
concerning the placing of plant protection products on the
market (OJ 1991 L 230, p. 1) — Interpretation of Article 16 of
Directive 98/8/EC of
the
Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of
biocidal products on the market (OJ 1998 L 123, p. 1) — Prior
authorisation of placing on the market — Period prescribed for
transposition elapsed — Application by the national court —
Authorisation for placing on the market products already there
two years after the directive was notified — Re-examination of
the products

the European Parliament and of

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 16(1) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing
of biocidal products on the market has the same meaning as
Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991
concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market.

2. Article 8(2) of Directive 91/414 does not constitute a ‘standstill’
obligation. However, the second paragraph of Article 10 EC and
the third paragraph of Article 249 EC, and Directive 91/414,
require that during the transitional period prescribed in Article
8(2) of that directive the Member States refrain from adopting
any measures liable seriously to compromise the result prescribed
by that directive. More specifically, Member States may not,
during that transitional period, amend the legislation applicable in
such a manner as to allow themselves to authorise a plant protec-
that provision,
tion product which comes within the scope of
without duly considering the effects which that product might have
on human and animal health and on the environment. Likewise, a
decision relating to an authorisation may be taken only on the
basis of a dossier comprising all necessary information enabling a
genuine assessment of those effects to be made.

3. Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/414 is to be interpreted as
meaning that, where a Member State authorises the placing on the
market on its territory of plant protection products containing
active substances not referred to in Annex I to that directive that
were already on the market two years after the date of notification
of the directive, it is not required to comply with the provisions of
Article 4 or Article 8(3) of that directive.

4. It is for the national court to assess whether the evaluation carried
out pursuant to Article 16aa of the Law on pesticides of 1962

5. Article 8(3) of Directive 91/414 is to be interpreted as meaning
that it contains only provisions relating to the provision of data
prior to a review.

(1) OJ C 143, 11.06.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 19 September
2006 — Commission of the European Communities v
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-193/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom
of establishment — Directive 98/5/EC — Practice of the
profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State
other than that in which the qualification was obtained —
Prior examination of knowledge of the languages of the host
Member State — Prohibition on being a person authorised to
accept service (domiciliataire) on behalf of companies —
Requirement to produce each year the certificate of registra-
tion with the competent authority of the home Member State)

(2006/C 281/22)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: D. Maidani and A. Bordes, Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by:
S. Schreiner, Agent, and L. Dupong, avocat,)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement
of Articles 2, 3 and 5 of Directive 98/5/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate
practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a
Member State other than that in which the qualification was
obtained (OJ 1998 L 77, p. 36) — Language testing — Prohibi-
tion on being a person authorised to accept service on behalf
of companies — Obligation to reproduce each year the certifi-
cate from the home Member State.

18.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/15

Operative part of the judgment

Re:

1. By making registration with the competent national authorities
subject to a prior language test for lawyers who have obtained
their qualification in a Member State other than the Grand Duchy
of Luxembourg and who wish to practise under their home-
country professional title in the latter Member State, by prohi-
biting those lawyers from being persons authorised to accept
service on behalf of companies, and by requiring them to produce
each year a certificate of registration with the competent authority
of their home Member State, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 98/5/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to
facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis
in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was
obtained.

2. The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 155, 25.6.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 September
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commis-
sione tributaria di primo grado di Trento — Italy) — Stra-
dasfalti Srl v Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Trento

(Case C-228/05) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive — Articles 17(7) and 29 — Right to
deduct input VAT)

(2006/C 281/23)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione tributaria di primo grado di Trento

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Stradasfalti Srl

Defendant: Agenzia delle Entrate — Ufficio di Trento

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Commissione tributaria
di primo grado di Trento — Interpretation of Articles 17(7)
and 29 of Sixth Council 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Right to
deduct VAT on inputs — National provision restricting the
right to deduct without consulting the committee provided for
under Article 29 of the directive

Operative part of the judgment

The Court rules:

1. The first sentence of Sixth Council 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
requires the Member
States, in order to respect the procedural obligation of consultation
laid down by Article 29 of that directive, to inform the Advisory
Committee on value added tax established by that article that they
intend to adopt a national measure derogating from the general
system of deducting value added tax and to provide that committee
with sufficient information to enable it to examine the measure in
full knowledge of the facts.

2. The first sentence of Article 7(7) of the Sixth Directive 77/388
must be interpreted as not authorising a Member State to exclude
goods from the system of deducting value added tax without first
consulting the Advisory Committee on value added tax established
by Article 29 of that directive. Nor does that provision authorise a
Member State to adopt measures excluding goods from the system
of deducting that tax which contain no indication as to their
limitation in time and/or which form part of a body of structural
adjustment measures whose aim is to reduce the budget deficit and
allow State debt to be repaid.

3. In so far as an exception from the system of deductions has not
been established in accordance with Article 17(7) of the Sixth
Directive, the national tax authorities may not rely as against a
taxable person on a provision derogating from the principle of the
right to deduct value added tax set out in Article 17(1) of that
directive. A taxable person which has been subject to that dero-
gating provision must be able to recalculate its value added tax
debt
the Sixth Directive
77/388, in so far as the goods and services have been used for the
purposes of taxable transactions.

in accordance with Article 17(2) of

(1) OJ C 193, 6. 8. 2005.