CELEX: C2003/226/20
Language: en
Date: 2003-09-20 00:00:00
Title: Case C-330/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Supremo, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, division: three by order of that Court of 21 July 2003 in the case of Colegio de Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales y Puertos against Administración del Estado, other Party: G.M. Imo

20.9.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 226/11
breach of Articles 1 and 3 of Regulation No 881/92 and of                    Action brought on 25 July 2003 by the Commission of the
Articles 1 and 6 of Regulation No 3118/93.                                      European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                                                      (Case C-326/03)
(1) OJ 1992 L 95, p. 1.
(2) OJ 1993 L 279, p. 1.                                                                              (2003/C 226/19)
                                                                             An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                             the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 July
                                                                             2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                             represented by M.-J. Jonczy, of its Legal Service.
Action brought on 24 July 2003 by the Italian Republic
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             The Commission claims that the Court should:
                           (Case C-324/03)
                                                                             —     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
                                                                                   administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                           (2003/C 226/18)                                         Council Directive 99/63/EC of 21 June 1999 concerning
                                                                                   the Agreement on the organisation of working time of
An action against the Commission of the European                                   seafarers concluded by the European Shipowners"
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                         Association (ECSA) and the Federation of Transport
European Communities on 24 July 2003 by the Italian                                Workers" Unions in the European Union (FST) (1), and in
Republic, represented by Ivo Maria Braguglia, acting as Agent,                     any event by failing to inform the Commission thereof,
and Avvocato dello Stato Antonio Cingolo.                                          the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                   under that directive;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                             —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
—     annul the memorandum from Commissioner Barnier of
      14 May 2003 No 26777, received on 20 May 2003, in so
      far as it refuses to accept as eligible for assistance advances        Pleas in law and main arguments
      granted in relation to State aid by the Member States after
      19 February 2003, and all measures on which it is based                The period within which the directive had to be transposed
      or with which it is connected;                                         expired on 30 June 2002.
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to
      pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              (1) OJ L 167, 2.7.1999, p. 33.
The applicant claims that the contested act is manifestly
contrary to Article 32 of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1260/1999 (1) and Rule No 1, Points 1 and 2 of the
annex to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1685/2000 (2).
According to the applicant, none of the provisions of the                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
abovementioned regulations assigns significance, for the pur-                Supremo, Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo,
poses of eligibility of amounts granted to the final recipient of            division: three by order of that Court of 21 July 2003 in
the funding by way of State aid, to the activities actually assisted         the case of Colegio de Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales
by the funding itself. On the contrary, the system set out in the            y Puertos against Administración del Estado, other Party:
regulations in question gives significance exclusively to pay-                                            G.M. Imo
ments actually made by the Member State as final recipient, on
the sole condition that they state exactly the expenditure actu-                                      (Case C-330/03)
ally borne by the final recipient itself.
                                                                                                      (2003/C 226/20)
The applicant also claims that the contested act is unlawful
inasmuch as its statement of reasons is defective and contra-                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
dictory.                                                                     European Communities by order of the Tribunal Supremo,
                                                                             Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo, division: three (Supreme
                                                                             Court, Chamber for Contentious-Administrative Proceedings) of
                                                                             21 July 2003, received at the Court Registry on 29 July 2003, for
(1) OJ 1999 L 161, p. 1.                                                     a preliminary ruling in the case of Colegio de Ingenieros de
(2) OJ 2000 L 193, p. 39.                                                    Caminos, Canales y Puertos against Administración del Estado,
                                                                             other Party: G. M. Imo on the following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- C 226/12                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          20.9.2003
A.    Can Article 3(a), in conjunction with Article 4(1), of               Does the term ‘contracts for the provision of [...] transport [...]
      Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a                 services’, in Article 3(2) of Directive 97/7/EC (1) on the protec-
      general system for the recognition of higher-education               tion of consumers in respect of distance contracts, include
      diplomas awarded on completion of professional education             contracts for the provision of car hire services?
      and training of at least three years" duration (1) be con-
      strued in such a way as to permit restricted recognition by a
      host Member State of the professional qualifications of an
      applicant who possesses the diploma of Ingegnere civile
      idraulico [civil engineer specialising in hydraulics] (awarded       (1) Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
      in Italy) and who wishes to pursue that profession in                    of 20 May 1997 on the protection of consumers in respect of
      another Member State whose legislation regulates the pro-                distance contracts — Statement by the Council and the Parliament
      fession of Ingeniero de Caminos, Canales y Puertos [civil                re Article 6(1) — Statement by the Commission re Article 3(1),
                                                                               first indent (OJ L 144, 4.6.1997, p. 19).
      engineer]? The question is based on the assumption that the
      latter profession comprises, in the host Member State, activ-
      ities which do not correspond in all cases to those covered
      by the applicant's diploma and that the evidence of educa-
      tion and training adduced by the applicant does not cover
      certain of the core matters which are generally required for
      the award of the qualification of Ingeniero de Caminos,              Action brought on 1 August 2003 by the Commission of
      Canales y Puertos (civil engineer) in the host Member State.         the European Communities against the Federal Republic of
                                                                                                         Germany
B.   Should the reply to the first question be in the affirmative,
     is it compatible with Articles 39 and 43 EC to restrict the                                     (Case C-339/03)
     right of applicants who seek to pursue their professions, in
     a self-employed or employed capacity, in a Member State                                         (2003/C 226/22)
     other than the one in which they were awarded their
     professional qualification, in such a way that the host               An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
     Member State is entitled to exclude, under its national               brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     legislation, restricted recognition of professional qualifica-        Communities on 1 August 2003 by the Commission of the
     tions where such a decision, which in principle implements            European Communities, represented by J.-C. Schieferer and
     Article 4 (1)(b) of Directive 89/48/EEC, entails the imposi-          M. Van Beek, members of the legal service of the Commission
     tion of certain additional, disproportionate requirements             of the European Communities, with an address for service in
     as regards pursuit of the profession?                                 Luxembourg.
     For these purposes, ‘restricted recognition’ is understood to
     mean that which authorises an applicant to work as an                 The Commission of the European Communities claims that the
     engineer only in the equivalent sector (hydraulics) of the            Court should:
     more general profession of Ingeniero de Caminos, Canales y
     Puertos (civil engineer) regulated in the host Member State,          1.    find that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and
     without requiring him to fulfil the additional requirements                 administrative provisions (in particular the laws, regula-
     laid down in Article 4 (1)(b) of Directive 89/48/EEC.                       tions and administrative provisions for the full implemen-
                                                                                 tation of the Directive in the Bundesländer, with the
                                                                                 exception of Bremen, Hamburg, Hessen, and Baden-
(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16.                                                   Württemberg Niedersachsen) necessary to comply with
                                                                                 Council Directive 1999/22/EC (1) of 29 March 1999 relat-
                                                                                 ing to the keeping of wild animals in zoos or, in any event,
                                                                                 by failing to communicate the same to the Commission,
                                                                                 the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
                                                                                 obligations under Article 9 of that directive;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, by order of                  2.    order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
that court dated 21 July 2003, in the case of easyCar (UK)
                Ltd against Office of Fair Trading
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (Case C-336/03)
                                                                           The time-limit for implementing the directive expired on
                          (2003/C 226/21)                                  9 April 2002 without all the Bundesländer having adopted
                                                                           the necessary provisions.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, dated 21 July
2003, which was received at the Court Registry on 30 July
2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of easyCar (UK) Ltd             (1) OJ L 94, 9.4.1999, p. 24.
and Office of Fair Trading on the following question: