CELEX: C2000/102/22
Language: en
Date: 2000-04-08 00:00:00
Title: Case C-28/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof by order of that court of 14 December 1999 in the case of Liselotte Kauer v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Angestellten

8.4.2000                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 102/13
a) Is a direct, extraordinary, periodic tax (0.75 % per annum;             imposed by the Regulation but aeroplanes wholly re-engined
     Decree-Law No 394/92, converted into Law No 461/92,                   with engines having a by-pass ratio of less than three are
     extended by Decree-Law No 564/94, converted into Law                  subject to prohibitions, having regard in particular to:
     No 656/94 and extended by Law No 549/95) compatible
     with Community law, and in particular with Directive
     No 69/335/EEC? (1)                                                    (i) the duty to give reasons under Article 253 of the EC
                                                                                 Treaty;
b) Having regard to the teleological criterion which, EEC                  (ii) the general principle of proportionality;
     case-law shows, is to be preferred to literal and systematic
     criteria, is it lawful to levy the tax on assets upon capital,
     as defined under the heading ‘Passivo/A) Patrimonio netto/I           (iii) such rights as private parties may derive from the General
     Capitale’ in Article 2424(2) of the Civil Code, as amended                  Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and/or the Agreement on
     by Article 5 of Decree-Law No 127/91, where that capital                    Technical Barriers to Trade?
     has already been assessed to an initial tax on contributions
     in accordance with Presidential Decree No 131/86?
                                                                           (1) On the registration and operation within the Community of
                                                                                certain types of civil subsonic jet aeroplanes which have been
                                                                                modified and recertificated as meeting the standards of volume 1,
(1) Council Directive of 17 July 1969 (OJ, English Special Edition              Part II, Chapter 3 of Annex 16 to the Convention on International
    1969 (II), p. 405).                                                         Civil Aviation, third edition (July 1993) (OJ L 115 of 4.5.1999,
(2) Article 2424 of the Civil Code sets out a number of balance sheet           p. 1) and Corrigendum (OJ L 120 of 8.5.1999, p. 47).
    items.
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
                                                                           Gerichtshof by order of that court of 14 December 1999
                                                                           in the case of Liselotte Kauer v Pensionsversicherungsan-
                                                                                                    stalt der Angestellten
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division
(Crown Office), by order of that court of 21 December                                                   (Case C-28/00)
1999, in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State
for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex parte:
                                                                                                       (2000/C 102/22)
                           Omega Air Ltd
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                            (Case C-27/00)                                 European Communities by an order of the Oberster Gerichts-
                                                                           hof (Supreme Court), Austria, of 14 December 1999, which
                                                                           was received at the Court Registry on 1 February 2000, for a
                          (2000/C 102/21)                                  preliminary ruling in the case of Liselotte Kauer v Pensionsver-
                                                                           sicherungsanstalt der Angestellten on the following question:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of                      Is Article 94(1) to (3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Crown                   of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes
Office), of 21 December 1999, which was received at the                    to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
Court Registry on 31 January 2000, for a preliminary ruling                members of their families moving within the Community (1),
in the case of the Queen against Secretary of State for the                as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC)
Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex parte: Omega Air                No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (2), as amended by Council
Ltd, on the following question:                                            Regulation (EEC) No 1249/92 of 30 April 1992 (3), to be
                                                                           interpreted as precluding a national provision under which,
                                                                           for the purpose of pension insurance, periods of child-rearing
                                                                           in the country are to be regarded as substitute qualifying
Is Article 2(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 925/1999 (1)                 periods but such periods in a Member State of the EEA (in this
invalid insofar as it defines ‘recertificated civil subsonic jet           case Belgium) are to be regarded as such only where they occur
aeroplanes’ so that re-engined aeroplanes ‘with engines having             after that Agreement entered into force (1 January 1994) and,
a by-pass ratio of three or more’ are not subject to prohibitions          in addition, only on condition that entitlement to a cash benefit
 ---pagebreak--- C 102/14                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       8.4.2000
stemming from maternity insurance under the (Austrian)                      Appeal brought on 7 February 2000 by the Commission
Allgemeines Sozialversicherungsgesetz (General Law on Social                of the European Communities against the judgment deliv-
Security) (ASVG) or another (Austrian) federal law or to a                  ered on 1 December 1999 by the Second Chamber of the
maternity benefit under the (Austrian) Betriebshilfegesetz                  Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
exists, or existed, in respect of that child?                               Joined Cases T-125/96 Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica
                                                                            GmbH and C.H. Boehringer Sohn Ltd, supported by
                                                                            Fédération Européenne de la Santé Animale (Fedesa) and
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416.                          the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
(2) OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6.                                                    Ireland, and the Council of the European Union, support-
(3) OJ 1992 L 136, p. 28.                                                   ed by Stichting Kwaliteitsgarantie Vleeskalverensector
                                                                            (SKV) and the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                            and T-152/96 Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH
                                                                            and C.H. Boehringer Sohn Ltd, supported by Fédération
                                                                            Européenne de la Santé Animale (Fedesa), and the Com-
                                                                            mission of the European Communities, supported by
                                                                            Stichting Kwaliteitsgarantie Vleeskalverensector (SKV)
                                                                                      and the Council of the European Union
                                                                                                    (Case C-32/00 P)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the First Chamber
of the Cour de Cassation (Belgium) by judgment of that
court of 21 January 2009 in the case of Conseil National                                            (2000/C 102/24)
    de l’Ordre des Architectes against Nicholas Dreessen
                                                                            An appeal against the judgment delivered on 1 December
                           (Case C-31/00)                                   1999 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                            the European Communities in Joined Cases T-125/96 (1)
                                                                            Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C.H. Boehringer
                          (2000/C 102/23)                                   Sohn Ltd, supported by Fédération Européenne de la Santé
                                                                            Animale (Fedesa) and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
                                                                            Northern Ireland, and the Council of the European Union,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      supported by Stichting Kwaliteitsgarantie Vleeskalverensector
European Communities by judgment of the First Chamber of                    (SKV) and the Commission of the European Communities, and
the Cour de Cassation (Court of Cassation) (Belgium) of                     T-152/96 (2) Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and
21 January 2000, which was received at the Court Registry on                C.H. Boehringer Sohn Ltd, supported by Fédération Européen-
7 February 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Conseil            ne de la Santé Animale (Fedesa), and the Commission of the
National de l’Ordre des Architectes against Nicholas Dreessen               European Communities, supported by Stichting Kwaliteitsga-
on the following question:                                                  rantie Vleeskalverensector (SKV) and the Council of the
                                                                            European Union, was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                            the European Communities on 7 February 2000 by the
Do Articles 5 and 52 of the Treaty of Rome mean that the                    Commission of the European Communities, represented by
competent authority of a Member State before which a                        Mr Xavier Lewis, Member of the Legal Service, acting as agent,
Community national who holds a diploma obtained in another                  with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Member State makes an application for authorisation to                      Mr Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Centre Wagner.
practise a profession to which access is, in accordance with
national legislation, subject to the possession of a diploma or
a vocational qualification, is required to take account of the              The Appellant claims that the Court should:
diploma relied upon by the applicant and to make a compari-
son between the competence and qualifications evidenced by
that diploma and the competence and qualifications required                 1. Annul that part of the judgment of the Court of First
under the national rules, even where there exists, with regard                  Instance of 1 December 1999 in Joined Cases T-125/96
to the profession in question, a directive adopted by the                       Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C.H. Boeh-
Council on the basis of Article 57(1) and (2) of the Treaty, and                ringer Sohn v. Council of the European Union and
that directive provides, so far as concerns courses of study                    T-152/96 Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and
started or followed during a transitional period, an exhaustive                 C.H. Boehringer Sohn v. Commission of the European
list of the diplomas or certificates, awarded in the various                    Communities which annuls Commission Regulation (EC)
Member States, enabling practice of the profession concerned                    No 1312/96 of 8 July 1996 amending Annex III of Council
in the other Member States, where the applicant falls within                    Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 laying down a Community
the scope of those transitional arrangements and the diploma                    procedure for the establishment of maximum residue
on which he relies is not included in that exhaustive list?                     limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of
                                                                                animal origin (OJ 1996 L 170, p. 8) in so far as it restricts
                                                                                the validity of the MRLs which it establishes for clenbuterol
                                                                                to certain specified therapeutic indications for bovines and
                                                                                equines;