Case C-195/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Republic of Lithuania) lodged on 14 May 2008 — Inga Rinau
Date: 2008-05-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: interpretation of the law, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, jurisdiction, mutual recognition principle, parental responsibility

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/27

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing the directive into national
law expired on 10 October 2006.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos
Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Republic of Lithuania) lodged on
14 May 2008 — Inga Rinau

(1) OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12.

(Case C-195/08)

(2008/C 171/42)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Action brought on 7 May 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Portuguese Republic

Referring court

Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania)

(Case C-191/08)

(2008/C 171/41)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Inga Rinau

Third party: Michael Rinau

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Condou-Durande and A. Caeiros, agents, acting as
Agents)

Questions referred

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Form of order sought

— Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
Directive 2004/83/EC (1) of 29 April 2004 on minimum
standards for the qualification and status of third country
nationals or stateless persons as refugees or as persons who
otherwise need international protection and the content of
the protection granted, the Portuguese Republic has failed to
fulfil
its obligations under Article 38(1) of Directive
2004/83/EC;

— in the alternative, declare that, by failing, in any event, to
inform the Commission of the adoption of such measures,
the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil
its obligations
under Article 38(1) of Directive 2004/83/EC;

— order Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2004/83/EC
into national law expired on 10 October 2006.

(1) OJ 2004 L 304, p. 12.

1. Can an interested party within the meaning of Article 21 of
Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (1) apply for non-
recognition of a judicial decision if no application has been
submitted for recognition of that decision?

2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: how is a
national court, when examining an application for non-
recognition of a decision brought by a person against whom
that decision is to be enforced, to apply Article 31(1) of
Regulation No 2201/2003, which states that ‘… Neither the
person against whom enforcement is sought, nor the child
shall, at this stage of the proceedings, be entitled to make
any submissions on the application’?

3. Is the national court which has received an application by
the holder of parental responsibility for non-recognition of
that part of the decision of the court of the Member State of
origin requiring that that holder return to the State of origin
the child staying with that holder, and in respect of which
the certificate provided for
in Article 42 of Regulation
No 2201/2003 has been issued, required to examine that
application on the basis of
the provisions contained in
Sections 1 and 2 of Chapter III of Regulation No 2201/2003,
as provided for in Article 40(2) of that regulation?

4. What meaning is to be attached to the condition laid down
in Article 21(3) of Regulation No 2201/2003 (‘Without
prejudice to Section 4 of this Chapter’)?

5. Do the adoption of a decision that the child be returned and
the issue of a certificate under Article 42 of Regulation
No 2201/2003 in the court of the Member State of origin,
after a court of the Member State in which the child is being
unlawfully kept has taken a decision that
the child be
returned to his or her State of origin, comply with the objec-
tives of and procedures under Regulation No 2201/2003?

C 171/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.7.2008

6. Does

the prohibition in Article 24 of Regulation
No 2201/2003 of review of the jurisdiction of the court of
the Member State of origin mean that, if it has received an
application for recognition or non-recognition of a decision
of a foreign court and is unable to establish the jurisdiction
of the court of the Member State of origin and unable to
identify any other grounds set out in Article 23 of Regu-
lation No 2201/2003 as a basis for non-recognition of deci-
sions, the national court is obliged to recognise the decision
of the court of the Member State of origin ordering the
child's return in the case where the court of the Member
State of origin failed to observe the procedures laid down in
the child's
the regulation when deciding on the issue of
return?

instructor qualifications, snowboarding can be taught in France
only by ski instructors.

The applicant considers that the refusal to permit access to the
profession of snowboard instructor alone cannot be justified
having regard to the fundamental principles of free movement
of persons, freedom to provide services and the right of estab-
lishment. The Commission considers, in addition, that the four
cumulative derogating conditions established by the Court's
case-law to justify any restriction on those principles — that
measures must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner; they
must be justified by overriding reasons based on the general
interest; they must be suitable for securing the attainment of the
objective which they pursue; and they must respect the principle
of proportionality — are not satisfied.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003
concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judg-
ments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsi-
bility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338,
p. 1).

(1) Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general
system for the recognition of professional education and training to
supplement Directive 89/48/EEC (OJ L 209, p. 25).

Action brought on 15 May 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v French Republic

Action brought on 20 May 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-200/08)

(2008/C 171/43)

Language of the case: French

(Case C-209/08)

(2008/C 171/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: A. Bordes and H. Støvlbæk, agents)

Parties

Defendant: French Republic

Form of order sought

— Declare that by refusing to permit German and British
snowboard instructors to teach that sport alone in France
and by not referring in the amended decree of 4 May 1995
to snowboard instructor qualifications acquired in other
Member States, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Articles 39, 43 and 49 EC and under
Article 6 of Directive 92/51/EEC (1);

— order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: Maria Condou Durande, agent)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

— Declare that by not adopting the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
Directive 2004/81/EC of 29 April 2004 on the residence
permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of
trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of
an action to facilitate illegal
immigration, who cooperate
with the competent authorities (1) or, in any event, by not
having informed the Commission of those provisions, the
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obliga-
tions under Article 17 of that directive;

While in several Member States ski-ing and snowboarding can
be taught by members of professions who have separate

— order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.