Case C-5/09: Action brought on 8 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
Date: 2009-01-08
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Greece, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, fine, reinsurance

7.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/19

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy)
lodged on
29 December 2008 — Angelo Rubino v Ministero
dell'Università e della Ricerca

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Peter Dimitrov Kalinchev

(Case C-586/08)

(2009/C 55/30)

Defendant: Regionalna Mitnicheska Direktsia — Plovdiv

Language of the case: Italian

Questions referred

Referring court

Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Angelo Rubino

Defendant: Ministero dell'Università e della Ricerca

Question referred

Is it contrary to the Community principles concerning the aboli-
tion of obstacles to the free movement of persons and services
between Member States of the Community, and the mutual
recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of
formal qualifications, set out in Articles 3(1)(c) and 47(1) of the
Treaty establishing the European Community, and the provisions
contained in Directive 2005/36/EC (1) of the European Parlia-
ment and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recogni-
tion of professional qualifications, for national legislation, such
as the Italian rules laid down in Legislative Decree 206/2007, to
exclude university lecturers from the scope of
the regulated
professions for purposes of
the recognition of professional
qualifications?

(1) OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22.

1. Does Article 3(3) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC (1) of
25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products
subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and
monitoring of such products allow Member States to lay
down a provision that excise duty be levied on the introduc-
tion of used motor vehicles into their territory, if that duty is
not directly payable on the second-hand purchase of such
vehicles which are already in the country and for which on
first
the Member State
excise duty is paid?

introduction into the territory of

2. Does the expression ‘similar domestic products’ in the first

paragraph of Article 90 EC mean:

(a) products which have their origin in the Member State,

which lays down specific domestic duties; or

(b) products which,

independently of

their origin, are

already in the territory of that Member State?

3. Having regard to the answers to the questions above: Are
Article 25 EC and the first paragraph of Article 90 EC to be
read as a prohibition on the differing rules on the levying of
excise duty on motor vehicles which the Republic of Bulgaria
has laid down in Articles 30 and 40 of the ZADS according
to the criteria of year of manufacture and mileage?

(1) OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1.

Action brought on 8 January 2009 — Commission of the
European Communities v Hellenic Republic

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven
administrativen Sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 6 January 2009 —
Peter Dimitrov Kalinchev v Regionalna Mitnicheska
Direktsia — Plovdiv

(Case C-2/09)

(2009/C 55/31)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Parties

(Case C-5/09)

(2009/C 55/32)

Language of the case: Greek

Referring court

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: N. Yerrell and M. Karanassou-Apostolopoulou)

Varhoven administrativen Sad

Defendant: Hellenic Republic

C 55/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.3.2009

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

— declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive
2005/68 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 16 November 2005, and in any event by not notifying
those provisions to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic
has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time-limit for transposition of Directive 2005/68/EC of
16 November 2005 into domestic law expired on 10 December
2007.

(1) OJ L 323 of 9.12.2005, p. 1.

The period prescribed for
domestic law expired on 1 September 2007.

transposing the directive

into

(1) OJ 2006 L 294, p. 32.

Action brought on 9 January 2009 — Commission of the
European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-11/09)

(2009/C 55/34)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Action brought on 9 January 2009 — Commission of the
European Communities v Portuguese Republic

Parties

(Case C-10/09)

(2009/C 55/33)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by C. Cattabriga and M. Teles Romão, Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Form of order sought

— a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Commission Directive 2006/86/EC (1) of 24 October 2006
implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parlia-
ment and of the Council as regards traceability requirements,
notification of serious adverse reactions and events and
certain technical requirements for the coding, processing,
preservation, storage and distribution of human tissues and
cells or, at any event, by failing to communicate those
measures to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

— an order that the Portuguese Republic should pay the costs.

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by C. Cattabriga and M. Teles Romão, Agents)

Defendant: Portuguese Republic

Form of order sought

— a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Commission Directive 2006/17/EC (1) of 8 February 2006
implementing Directive 2004/23/EC of the European Parlia-
ment and of the Council as regards certain technical require-
ments for the donation, procurement and testing of human
tissues and cells or, at any event, by failing to communicate
those measures to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic
has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive

— an order that the Portuguese Republic should pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing the directive expired on
1 November 2006.

(1) OJ 2006 L 38, p. 40.