Case C-475/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Berufsgericht für Heilberufe bei dem Verwaltungsgericht Gießen (Germany) lodged on 19 September 2011 — Disciplinary proceedings against Kostas Konstantinides
Date: 2011-09-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer protection, criminal negligence, freedom to provide services, physician, recognition of vocational training qualifications








C_2011355EN.01000901.xml










3.12.2011   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 355/9





Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Berufsgericht für Heilberufe bei dem Verwaltungsgericht Gießen (Germany) lodged on 19 September 2011 — Disciplinary proceedings against Kostas Konstantinides
(Case C-475/11)
2011/C 355/14
Language of the case: German

Referring court

Berufsgericht für Heilberufe bei dem Verwaltungsgericht Gießen

Parties to the main proceedings


Defendant: Kostas Konstantinides

Other party: Landesärztekammer Hessen

Questions referred







A.


With regard to Article 5(3) of Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications (Directive 2005/36/EC): (1)







1.


Is Paragraph 12(1) of the Berufsordnung für die Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Hessen (Professional Code of Conduct for the Medical Profession in Hesse) of 2 September 1998 (Hessisches Ärzteblatt (HÄBI.) 1998, p. I–VIII), last amended on 1 December 2008 (HÄBI. 2009, p. 749) — ‘the Code of Conduct’ — a professional rule the breach of which by the service provider in the host State may give rise to professional disciplinary proceedings concerning serious professional malpractice which is directly and specifically linked to consumer protection and safety?










2.


If so, does this also hold in the event that no relevant fee code exists for the operation performed by the service provider (here: the doctor) in the applicable Gebührenordnung für Ärzte (Regulation on Medical Fees) of the host State?










3.


Are the provisions on unprofessional advertising (Paragraph 27(1)-(3) in conjunction with Section D, point 13 of the Code of Conduct) professional rules the breach of which by the service provider in the host State may give rise to professional disciplinary proceedings concerning serious professional malpractice which is directly and specifically linked to consumer protection and safety?














B.


With regard to letter (a) of the first sentence of Article 6 of Directive 2005/36/EC:
Do the rules adopted in implementation of Directive 2005/36/EC amending Paragraph 3(1) and (3) of the Hessisches Gesetz über die Berufsvertretungen, die Berufsausübung, die Weiterbildung und die Berufsgerichtsbarkeit der Ärzte, Zahnärzte, Tierärzte, Apotheker, Psychologischen Psychotherapeuten und Kinder- und Jugendlichenpsychotherapeuten (Hesse Law on professional associations, professional practice, further training and jurisdiction of professional disciplinary tribunals for doctors, dentists, veterinarians, pharmacists, psychological psychotherapists and child and youth psychotherapists (‘Law on the medical profession’)), in the version published on 7 February 2003 (Gesetz- und Verordnungsblatt (GVBl.) I, p. 123), last amended by the Law of 24 March 2010 (GVBl. I, p. 123), by the Drittes Gesetz zur Änderung des Heilberufsgesetzes (Third Law amending the Law on the medical profession) of 16 October 2006 (GVBl. I, p. 519), represent the correct implementation of the abovementioned provisions of Directive 2005/36/EC, in that both the relevant codes of conduct and the provisions governing jurisdiction of professional disciplinary tribunals in the Sixth Section of the Law on the medical profession are declared to be fully applicable to service providers (here: doctors) who are working temporarily in the host State exercising freedom to provide services under Article 57 TFEU (formerly Article 50 EC)?






(1)  OJ 2005 L 255, p. 22.