Case C-321/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Mannheim (Germany) lodged on 12 July 2007 — Criminal proceedings against Karl Schwarz
Date: 2007-11-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, accession to the European Union, driving licence, interpretation of the law, mutual recognition principle, traffic regulations

C 283/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.11.2007

Operative part of the judgment

1. By failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, the laws, regula-
tions and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Commission Directive 2005/28/EC of 8 April 2005 laying down
principles and detailed guidelines
for good clinical practice as
regards investigational medicinal products for human use, as well as
the requirements for authorisation of the manufacturing or impor-
tation of such products, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Article 31(1) of that directive;

2. The Czech Republic is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht
Mannheim (Germany) lodged on 12 July 2007 — Criminal
proceedings against Karl Schwarz

(Case C-321/07)

(2007/C 283/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Landgericht Mannheim

Party to the main proceedings

Karl Schwarz

Questions referred

drive, which was issued earlier, also no longer requires to be
recognised after accession of the foreign Member State, even
where the period of
the ban imposed in Germany has
expired?

(1) Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences

(OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from Supreme Court
(Ireland) made on 6 August 2007 — Nicole Hassett and
Cheryl Doherty/The Medical Defence Union Limited and
MDU Services Limited v Raymond Howard and Brian
Davidson

(Case C-372/07)

(2007/C 283/10)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Supreme Court, Ireland

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Nicole Hassett and Cheryl Doherty/The Medical
Defence Union Limited and MDU Services Limited

Defendants: Raymond Howard and Brian Davidson

Questions referred

1. Is it — contrary to Article 7(5) of Directive 91/439/EEC (1)
— possible under Community law for a citizen of the EU to
hold a valid German right to drive and a second right to
drive issued by another Member State, both of which were
obtained before the accession to the EU of
the foreign
Member State and — if so —

2. Does the withdrawal — before the entry into force of the
Regulation on the right to drive (Fahrerlaubnisverordnung;
‘FeV’) of 1 January 1999 — of the later second German right
to drive as a consequence of a drunkenness offence mean
that the validity in Germany of the first foreign right to

Where medical practitioners form a mutual defence organisation
taking the form of a company, incorporated under the laws of
one Member State, for the purpose of providing assistance and
indemnity to its members practising in that and another
Member State in respect of their professional practice, and the
provision of such assistance or indemnity is dependant on the
making of a decision by the Board of Management of that
company, in accordance with its Articles of association, in its
absolute discretion, are proceedings in which a decision refusing
assistance or indemnity to a medical practitioner practising in
the other Member State pursuant to that provision is challenged
by that medical practitioner as involving a breach by the
company of contractual or other legal rights of the medical