Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

21.2.2004 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 47/19

Furthermore, there exists no provision of Spanish law which
demands that account should be taken of compliance by a
foreign private security firm, or by its staff, with the guarantees
and requirements imposed in another Member State. As a
result, those are measures which have the effect of discouraging
foreign undertakings that wish to carry on activities in Spain.

( [1] ) 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).
( [2] ) 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/EC (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 25).

**Counterclaim submitted in the defence lodged on 17 July**
**2001 by the Commission in Case T-85/01 Società IAMA**
**Consulting v Commission of the European Communities,**
**pending before the Court of First Instance and referred to**
**the Court of Justice on 2 December 2003 by order of**
**25 November 2003, as a matter of jurisdiction**

**(Case C-517/03)**

(2004/C 47/30)

On 2 December 2003 the Court of First Instance, by order of
25 November 2003, referred to the Court of Justice a
counterclaim submitted by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Eugenio de March and Alberto
Dal Ferro, acting as Agents, in its defence in Case T-85/01
Società IAMA Consulting v Commission of the European
Communities.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

—
Uphold its counterclaim and order Società IAMA Consulting to repay the sum of LIT 1 099 405 866
(EUR 567 796) plus interest, in accordance with
Article 94 of Regulation No 341/93;

—
In any event order Società IAMA Consulting to pay the
costs

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Under Article 23.3 of the contracts, the applicant before the
Court of First Instance, Società IAMA Consulting, is required
to reimburse the Commission for any sums overpaid.

Part of the Community contribution is attributable to
the expenses incurred by IAMA Consulting before 1 November 1997 (and not re-invoiced to IAMA International) in
a total amount of LIT 913 874 209, of which
LIT 576 432 631 related to the REGIS Project and
LIT 337 441 578 to the REFIAG Project.

The remainder derives from the amendments to expenditure,
made during the audit, amounting to a total of
LIT 185 531 657, of which LIT 60 603 671 related to the
REGIS Project and LIT 124 927 986 to the REFIAG Project.

**Action brought on 9 December 2003 by the Commission**
**of the European Communities against the Kingdom of**
**Sweden**

**(Case C-518/03)**

(2004/C 47/31)

An action against the Kingdom of Sweden was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
9 December 2003 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by K. Banks and K. Simonsson,
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. declare that, by failing to adopt, or to communicate to
the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions necessary to implement Directive 98/44/EC ( [1] )
of the European Parliament and the Council of 6 July
1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, Sweden has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
directive; and

2. order Sweden to pay the costs of the case.

C 47/20 EN Official Journal of the European Union 21.2.2004

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

The period within which the directive was to be implemented
expired on 30 July 2000.

( [1] ) OJ 1998 L 213, p. 13.

**Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesge-**
**richt München by order of that Court of 24 June 2003 in**
**the case of SA Scania Finance France against Rockinger**
**Spezialfabrik für Anhängerkupplungen GmbH & Co.**

**(Case C-522/03)**

(2004/C 47/32)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
München of 24 June 2003, received at the Court Registry on
6 November 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of SA
Scania Finance France against Rockinger Spezialfabrik für
Anhängerkupplungen GmbH & Co. on the following questions:

1. Is point 2 of Article 27 of the Brussels Convention of
27 September 1968, as amended by the Fourth Convention on Accession of 29 November 1996, in conjunction
with the first paragraph of Article IV of the Protocol to
the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968, as
amended by the Fourth Convention on Accession of
29 November 1996, to be interpreted as meaning that
judicial documents may be served on a defendant, who at
the time of service of the document instituting proceedings is domiciled in a Contracting State other than the
State of the court, only in accordance with the conventions concluded between the Contracting States?

2. If not, is Article 12 EC to be interpreted as precluding a
national rule under which service of a judicial document
on a defendant who, at the time of the service, is
domiciled in another Member State is deemed constituted
by a domestic service whereby the bailiff of the court
lodges the document instituting proceedings with the
public prosecution service, which forwards the documents for transfer by contractual or diplomatic means,
and, by registered letter with notice of delivery, notifies
the foreign party of the service which has been effected?

**Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court**
**of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division**
**(Administrative Court) by order of that court dated**
**10 December 2003, in the case of The Queen on the**
**application of 1) Unitymark Ltd, 2) North Sea Fishermen’s**
**Organisation against Department for Environment, Food**
**and Rural Affairs**

**(Case C-535/03)**

(2004/C 47/33)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court) dated 10 December 2003, which was received
at the Court Registry on 19 December 2003, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of The Queen on the application of
1) Unitymark Ltd, 2) North Sea Fishermen’s Organisation
against Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,
on the following questions:

Are:

(1) paragraph 4(b), and the part of paragraph 6(a) which
refers to paragraph 4(b), of Annex XVII of Council
Regulation 2341/2002 of 20 December 2002 ( [1] ); and/or

(2) paragraph 4(b), and the part of paragraph 6(a) which
refers to paragraph 4(b), of Annex XVII of Council
Regulation 2341/2002 of 20 December 2002 as
amended by Regulation 671/2003 of 10 April 2003 ( [2] );
and/or

(3) Article 1 of Commission Decision 2003/185 of 14 March
2003 ( [3] ) insofar as the Commission refuses to extend,
under paragraph 6(b) of Annex XVII of Council Regulation 2341/2002, the number of days available to vessels
carrying the gear in the class referred to in paragraph 4(b)
of that Annex, by two days,

unlawful in their application to open gear beam trawlers
because they are:

(a) contrary to Articles 33 (ex 39) and 34 (ex 40) EC,

(b) contrary to Articles 28 (ex 30) and 29 (ex 34) EC,

(c) disproportionate,