Case C-7/08: 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
Date: 2008-01-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: CCT duties, exemption from customs duties, import (EU), interpretation of the law

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