CELEX: C2000/102/24
Language: en
Date: 2000-04-08 00:00:00
Title: Case C-32/00 P: Appeal brought on 7 February 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 1 December 1999 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in 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 the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Council of the European Union, supported 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 Commission of the European Communities, supported by Stichting Kwaliteitsgarantie Vleeskalverensector (SKV) and the Council of the European Union

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;
 ---pagebreak--- 8.4.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 102/15
2. Dismiss the action for annulment of Regulation 1312/96              Pleas in law and main arguments
     lodged by Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and
     C.H. Boehringer Sohn in T-152/96 as unfounded;
                                                                       The existing waste management plans currently notified to the
3. Order Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C.H.                  Commission under Article 7 of Directive 75/442/EEC do not
     Boehringer Sohn to pay the costs of this appeal;                  appear to cover the whole territory of the United Kingdom.
                                                                       From the information provided the Commission has had to
4. Order Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica GmbH and C.H.                  conclude that the United Kingdom has not notified sufficient
     Boehringer Sohn to bear the costs of the action for               waste plans to cover the whole territory of the United
     annulment in Case T-152/96.                                       Kingdom.
                                                                       As regards Directive 91/689/EEC, an examination of Annex I
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        of the Reasoned Opinion shows that 21 of the notified plans
                                                                       do not contain the requisite information relating to hazardous
The Commission submits that the Court of First Instance erred          waste. By virtue of Article 6 of this directive, the United
in law in finding that the Commission had exceeded its powers          Kingdom authorities are required to draw up plans for
by restricting the validity of the maximum residue limits              the management of hazardous waste. From the information
(MRLs) established in Regulation 1312/96.                              provided, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil this obli-
                                                                       gation.
The Commission also submits that the reasoning used to
support that conclusion is contradictory, incomplete and               Furthermore, as regards Directive 94/62/EC, only one plan
wrong.                                                                 appears to include a chapter on packaging waste. By virtue of
                                                                       Article 14 of this directive, the United Kingdom authorities are
                                                                       required to include a specific chapter on the management of
(1) OJ C 318 of 26.10.1996, p. 15.                                     packaging and packaging waste in an Article 7 waste plan.
(2) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996, p. 32.                                     From the information provided, the United Kingdom has failed
                                                                       to fulfil this obligation.
                                                                       (1) Of the Council of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975,
                                                                           p. 39).
                                                                       (2) Of the Council of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste (OJ
                                                                           L 377 of 31.12.1991, p. 20).
Action brought on 8 February 2000 by the Commission of                 (3) Of the European Parliament and Council of 20 December 1994
the European Communities against the United Kingdom                        on packaging and packaging waste (OJ L 365 of 31.12.1994,
                                                                           p. 10).
                         (Case C-35/00)
                        (2000/C 102/25)
An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 February
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Mr Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal                  Action brought on 14 February 2000 by the Commission
Adviser, and Ms Lena Ström, Legal Adviser, acting as agents,                   of the European Communities against Ireland
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Mr Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Centre Wagner.
                                                                                                  (Case C-46/00)
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                                (2000/C 102/26)
— declare that, by failing to draw up waste-management
     plans in conformity with all the requirements of Directives       An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
     75/442/EEC (1), 91/689/EEC (2) and 94/62/EC (3) concern-          Justice of the European Communities on 14 February 2000 by
     ing waste and/or inform the Commission thereof, the               the Commission of the European Communities, represented
     United Kingdom Government has failed to fulfil its obli-          by Karen Banks, Legal Adviser, and Bernard Mongin, member
     gations under Articles 7, 6 and 14 respectively of these          of the Legal Service acting as agents, with an address for service
     Directives,                                                       at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also of the
                                                                       Legal Service of the Commission, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg,
— order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.                           Luxembourg.