Case C-345/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin (Germany) lodged on 28 July 2008 — Krzysztof Pesla v Justizministerium Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
Date: 2008-07-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU national, examination, interpretation of the law, magistrate, occupational status, professional qualifications, vocational training

11.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/9

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
gericht Schwerin (Germany)
lodged on 28 July 2008
— Krzysztof Pesla v Justizministerium Mecklenburg-
Vorpommern

Action brought on 25 July 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland

(Case C-345/08)

(2008/C 260/15)

Language of the case: German

(Case C-346/08)

(2008/C 260/16)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Krzysztof Pesla

Defendant: Justizministerium Mecklenburg-Vorpommern

Questions referred

1. Is it compatible with Article 39 EC that a finding of equiva-
lence under Paragraph 112a(1) and (2) of
the Deutsches
Richtergesetz (German Law on Judges) is made only if can be
the documentary evidence
established on the basis of
submitted that the EU citizen has the knowledge and skills as
tested in the (German legal) examination of mandatory
subjects provided for in Paragraph 5(1) of the Deutsches
Richtergesetz?

2. If question 1 is to be answered in the negative: Does
Article 39 EC require that the only criterion for an assess-
ment of equivalence which is consistent with European law
is whether the university diploma obtained by the EU citizen
in the EU together with the additional evidence submitted by
him of educational performance and experience is compar-
able from the point of view of the (intellectual)
level of
education and the extent of
that education to the first
German State examination in law?

3. If question 2 is also to be answered in the negative: Is it
compatible with Article 39 EC, if the finding of equivalence
under Paragraph 112a(1) and (2) of the Deutsches Richterge-
takes the material examined in the mandatory
setz still
subjects of the first (German legal) State examination as its
reference point, but
the legal education
in the light of
successfully completed elsewhere in the Community only
somewhat ‘lowered’ requirements are imposed?

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: P. Oliver and A. Alcover San Pedro, Agents)

Defendant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by refusing to apply Directive 2001/80/EC (1)
on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the
air from large combustion plants to the Lynemouth Power
Plant, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations
under that Directive;

— order United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission submits that the coal-fired power plant at
Lynemouth in Northumberland constitutes a combustion plant
within the meaning of
the United
Kingdom shared this view but, following a radical change of
position, now vigorously contests it.

the directive.

Initially,

If the Lynemouth power plant is covered by the directive, as the
Commission claims, then it is plainly an ‘existing plant’ within
the meaning of Article 2(10) of the directive. It is common
ground between the parties that the original operating licence
was granted before 1 July 1987. It follows that, in the Commis-
sion's view, emissions from the plant should have been signifi-
cantly reduced by 1 January 2008 in accordance with
Article 4(3).

The Commission submits that, by failing to apply the directive
to the Lynemouth power plant, the United Kingdom has acted
in breach of that directive. The failure to significantly reduce
emissions from the plant by 1 January 2008 constitutes a conti-
nuing breach of Community law.

(1) JO L 309, p. 1.