Case C-8/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) lodged on 9 January 2008 — 1. T-Mobile Netherlands, 2. KPN Mobile NV, 3. Raad van bestuur van de Nederlandse Mededingingsautoriteit, 4. Orange Nederland NV, Intervener: Vodafone Libertel BV
Date: 2008-01-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: competition law, interpretation of the law, telecommunications, unlawful agreement

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/11

of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68
and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC,
73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC
and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77, and — Corrigenda —
OJ 2004 L 229, p. 35, and OJ 2005 L 197, p. 34) — Mutual
recognition of diplomas and freedom of establishment — Obli-
gation to take account of all the diplomas, certificates and other
evidence of formal qualifications and of the relevant experience
of the person concerned — Situation of a national of a non-
Member State, the holder of a degree in medicine issued by that
non-Member State and recognised by a Member State, wishing
to obtain authorisation to practise her profession as a doctor in
another Member State where she resides lawfully with her
spouse, a Community national

Operative part of the order

of

the Member States

Article 23 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the rights of citizens of the
Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the
territory
amending Regulation (EEC)
No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC,
72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC,
90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC does not preclude a Member State from
refusing to allow a national of a non-Member State, who is married to
a Community national who has not exercised his right to freedom of
movement, to rely on the Community rules relating to the mutual
recognition of diplomas and to the freedom of establishment, and does
not require the competent authorities of the Member State, from which
authorisation to practise a regulated profession is sought, to take into
consideration all the diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal
qualifications, even if they were obtained outside the European Union
but if, at least, they have been recognised in another Member State,
and the relevant experience of the person concerned, by comparing the
specialised knowledge and abilities certified by those diplomas and that
experience with the knowledge and qualifications required by the
national rules.

(1) OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der
Nederlanden lodged on 9 January 2008 — Har Vaessen
Douane Service B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

(Case C-7/08)

(2008/C 92/18)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Har Vaessen Douane Service B.V. and Staatssecretaris van
Financiën

Questions referred

1. Is Article 27 of Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March
1983 (1), as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 3357/91 of
7 November 1991 (2), to be interpreted as meaning that the
relief referred to in that Article may be claimed in respect of
consignments made up of goods which are individually of
negligible value but are dispatched as a grouped consignment
with a combined intrinsic value which exceeds the value
threshold in Article 27?

2. Should Article 27 of the regulation referred to be applied on
the basis that ‘dispatched direct from a third country to a
consignee in the Community’ also covers a situation in
which the goods are in a third country before being
dispatched to the consignee but the consignee's contractual
partner is established in the Community?

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a
Community system of reliefs from customs duty (OJ 1983 L 105,
p. 1).

(2) OJ 1991 L 318, p. 3.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands)
lodged on
9 January 2008 — 1. T-Mobile Netherlands, 2. KPN
Mobile NV, 3. Raad van bestuur van de Nederlandse
NV,
Mededingingsautoriteit,

4. Orange

Nederland

Intervener: Vodafone Libertel BV

(Case C-8/08)

(2008/C 92/19)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants:

1. T-Mobile Netherlands BV

2. KPN Mobile NV

C 92/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.4.2008

3. Raad van bestuur van de Nederlandse Mededingingsautoriteit

Question referred

4. Orange Nederland NV

Intervener: Vodafone Libertel BV

Questions referred

1. When applying Article 81(1) EC, which criteria must be
applied when assessing whether a concerted practice has as
its object the prevention, restriction or distortion of competi-
tion within the common market?

2. Is Article 81 EC to be interpreted as meaning that, when a
national court applies that provision, the evidence of a causal
connection between concerted practice and market conduct
must be adduced and appraised in accordance with the rules
of national law, provided that those rules are not less favour-
able than the rules governing similar domestic actions and
they do not make the exercise of the rights granted by Com-
munity law in practice impossible or excessively difficult?

3. When applying the concept of concerted practices

in
Article 81 EC,
is there always a presumption of a causal
connection between concerted practice and market conduct
even if the concerted practice is an isolated event and the
undertaking which took part in the practice remains active
on the market or only in those cases in which the concerted
practice has taken place with a certain degree of regularity
over a lengthy period?

Must Article 15(1) of Annex I to the Agreement between the
European Community and its Member States, of the one part,
and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, on the free move-
ment of persons (1) be interpreted as meaning that, as regards
access to a self-employed activity and the pursuit thereof, only
self-employed persons within the meaning of Article 12(1) of
Annex I to the agreement are to be afforded no less favourable
treatment in the host country than that accorded to its own
nationals, or does this also apply to self-employed frontier
workers within the meaning of Article 13(1) of Annex I to the
agreement.

(1) OJ 2002 L 114, p. 6.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de
Primera Instancia e Instrucción no 5 San Javier (Spain)
lodged on 14 January 2008 — Roda Golf & Beach
Resort SL

(Case C-14/08)

(2008/C 92/21)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción (Court of First
Instance and Preliminary Investigations) no 5 San Javier

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgericht-
shof
lodged on 14 January 2008 — Agricultural
matter involving Erich Stamm, Anneliese Hauser and
Regierungspräsidium Freiburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Roda Golf & Beach Resort SL

(Case C-13/08)

(2008/C 92/20)

Language of the case: German

Questions referred

1. Does the scope of Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 (1) extend
to the service of extrajudicial documents exclusively by and
on private persons using the physical and personal resources
of the courts and tribunals of the European Union and the
regulatory framework of European law even when no court
proceedings have been commenced? Or,

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

2 Does Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 on the contrary apply
exclusively in the context of judicial cooperation between
progress
Member
court
(Articles 61(c), 67(1) and 65 EC and recital 6 of
the
preamble to Regulation 1348/2000)?

proceedings

States

and

in

Parties to the main proceedings

Erich Stamm, Anneliese Hauser
Freiburg

and Regierungspräsidium

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 of 29 May 2000 on the service in
the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or
commercial matters (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 37).