Case C-14/07: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof, Germany) — Ingenieurbüro Michael Weiss und Partner GbR v Industrie- und Handelskammer Berlin (Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 — Service of judicial and extrajudicial documents — Annexes to the document not translated — Consequences)
Date: 2008-05-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU Member State, EU act, civil law, commercial law, interpretation of the law, official language

21.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/5

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Danske Svineproducenter

Defendant: Justitsministeriet

Intervener: Den Europæiske Dyre- og Kødhandelsunion (UECBV)

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Vestre Landsret —
Interpretation of points 2(b), 47(D) and the third indent of
point 48(3) of the Annex to Council Directive 91/628/EEC on
the protection of animals during transport and amending Direc-
tives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC (OJ 1991 L 340, p. 17), as
amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995
(OJ 1995 L 148, p. 52) — Minimum height and loading density
in each deck in vehicles transporting pigs where the transport
exceeds eight hours

Operative part of the judgment

1. National rules such as those at issue in the main proceedings,
comprising figures for the animal compartment height in order that
transporters may refer to more precise standards than those set out
in Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the
protection of animals during transport and amending Directives
90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC, as amended by Council Directive
95/29/EC of 29 June 1995, may fall within the margin of discre-
tion conferred on the Member States by Article 249 EC, on condi-
tion that those rules, which comply with the objective pursued by
that directive, as amended, of protecting animals during transport
do not, contrary to the principle of proportionality, prevent attain-
ment of the objectives, also pursued by that directive, as amended,
of eliminating technical barriers to trade in live animals and
allowing market organisations to operate smoothly. It is for the
national court to establish whether those rules comply with those
principles.

2. Section D of point 47 in Chapter VI of the annex to Directive
91/628, as amended by Directive 95/29, must be interpreted as
meaning that a Member State is entitled to introduce national
rules under which, in the case of transport operations of over eight
hours' duration, the available space per animal must be at least
0,50 m2 per 100 kg of pig.

(1) OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.

the Court

(Third Chamber) of 8 May
Judgment of
2008 (reference for
a preliminary ruling from the
Bundesgerichtshof, Germany) — Ingenieurbüro Michael
Weiss und Partner GbR v Industrie- und Handelskammer
Berlin

(Case C-14/07) (1)

(Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC)
No 1348/2000 — Service of judicial and extrajudicial docu-
translated —
ments — Annexes

to the document not

Consequences)

(2008/C 158/07)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ingenieurbüro Michael Weiss und Partner GbR

Defendant: Industrie- und Handelskammer Berlin

Joined party: Nicholas Grimshaw & Partners Ltd

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof —
Interpretation of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC)
No 1348/2000 of 29 May 2000 on the service in the Member
States of
in civil or
judicial and extrajudicial documents
commercial matters (OJ 2000 L 160, p. 37) — Refusal to
accept an application served in another Member State and
drawn up in the language of that Member State addressed on
the ground that the annexes to the application are available only
in the language of
the
language designated by the parties as the language of cor-
respondence in a contract concluded between them

the Member State of

transmission,

Operative part of the judgment

1. Article 8(1) of Council 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 is to be inter-
preted as meaning that the addressee of a document instituting the
proceedings which is to be served does not have the right to refuse
to accept that document, provided that it enables the addressee to
assert his rights in legal proceedings in the Member State of trans-
mission, where annexes are attached to that document consisting of
documentary evidence which is not in the language of the Member
State addressed or in a language of the Member State of transmis-
sion which the addressee understands, but which has a purely
evidential
function and is not necessary for understanding the
subject matter of the claim and the cause of action.

C 158/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.6.2008

instituting the proceedings is sufficient

It is for the national court to determine whether the content of the
document
to enable the
defendant to assert his rights or whether it is necessary for the
party instituting the proceedings to remedy the fact that a necessary
annex has not been translated.

2. Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 1348/2000 is to be interpreted
as meaning that the fact that the addressee of a document served
has agreed in a contract concluded with the applicant in the course
of his business that correspondence is to be conducted in the
language of the Member State of transmission does not give rise to
is evidence
a presumption of knowledge of
which the court may take into account in determining whether that
addressee understands the language of the Member State of trans-
mission.

language, but

that

3. Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1348/2000 is to be interpreted as
meaning that the addressee of a document served may not in any
event rely on that provision in order to refuse acceptance of annexes
to the document which are not in the language of the Member
State addressed or in a language of the Member State of transmis-
sion which the addressee understands where the addressee concluded
a contract in the course of his business in which he agreed that cor-
respondence was to be conducted in the language of the Member
State of transmission and the annexes concern that correspondence
and are written in the agreed language.

(1) OJ C 56, 10.3.2007.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 8 May 2008
— Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom
of Spain

(Case C-39/07) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
89/48/EEC — Recognition of higher-education diplomas
awarded on completion of professional education and training
of at least three years' duration — National legislation not
providing for the recognition of diplomas allowing access to
the profession of hospital pharmacist — Failure to transpose
the directive)

(2008/C 158/08)

Language of the case: Spanish

Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez,
Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to
transpose Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988
on a general system for the recognition of higher-education
diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and
training of at least three years' duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16),
as far as the profession of hospital pharmacist is concerned

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary to
transpose Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on
a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas
awarded on completion of professional education and training of at
least three years' duration, as far as the profession of hospital phar-
macist is concerned, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
obligations under that directive;

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 May 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione
tributaria provinciale — Italy) — Ecotrade SpA v Agenzia
Entrate Ufficio Genova 3

(Joined Cases C-95/07 and C-96/07) (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive — Reverse charge procedure — Right to
deduct — Time-bar — Irregularity in accounts and tax
returns affecting transactions subject to the reverse charge
procedure)

(2008/C 158/09)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: H. Støvlbæk and R. Vidal Puig, Agents, Agents)

Commissione tributaria provinciale

Referring court