CELEX: C2002/144/26
Language: en
Date: 2002-06-15 00:00:00
Title: Case C-102/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart by order of that Court of 5 March 2002 in the administrative-law case of Ingeborg Beuttenmüller against Land Baden-Württemberg

15.6.2002             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 144/15
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungs-               1.   Is Article 6(1)(b) of the Trade Mark Directive (1) also
gerichtshof by order of that Court of 28 February 2002 on                 applicable if a third party uses the indications referred to
the appeal brought by Hannl + Hofstetter Internationale                   therein as trade marks?
Spedition GmbH against Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien,
Niederösterreich und Burgenland (Berufungssenat II der
                          Region Wien)                               2.   If so, must their use as trade marks be taken into account
                                                                          when it is considered, pursuant to the final clause of
                                                                          Article 6(1) of the Trade Mark Directive, whether ‘honest
                         (Case C-91/02)                                   practices in industrial or commercial matters’ prevail?
                        (2002/C 144/24)
                                                                     (1) OJ L 40, 11 February 1989, p. 1.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-
hof (Administrative Court) of 28 February 2002, received at
the Court Registry on 15 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling
on the appeal brought by Hannl + Hofstetter Internationale
Spedition GmbH against Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien,
Niederösterreich und Burgenland (Berufungssenat II der Region
Wien) on the following question:                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-
                                                                     richt Stuttgart by order of that Court of 5 March 2002 in
Is the increase in duty under Paragraph 108(1) of the Austrian       the administrative-law case of Ingeborg Beuttenmüller
Zollrechts-Durchführungsgesetz, which is payable in the event                      against Land Baden-Württemberg
of the incurrence of a customs debt under Articles 202 to 205
or 210 or 211 of the Customs Code or in the event of
subsequent recovery under Article 220 of the Customs Code                                     (Case C-102/02)
and which corresponds to the amount which would have been
incurred as interest on arrears for the period between the
incurrence of the customs debt and the entry in the accounts,                                (2002/C 144/26)
and in the case of subsequent recovery under Article 220 of
the Customs Code between the date when the customs debt
originally entered in the accounts was due and the entry in the
accounts of the customs debt to be subsequently recovered,
contrary to Community customs provisions?
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht
                                                                     Stuttgart (Stuttgart Administrative Court) of 5 March 2002,
                                                                     received at the Court Registry on 20 March 2002, for a
                                                                     preliminary ruling in the administrative-law case of Ingeborg
                                                                     Beuttenmüller against Land Baden-Württemberg on the follow-
                                                                     ing questions:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundes-                    1.   Is Article 3, in conjunction with Article 4, of Council
gerichtshof by order of that Court of 7 February 2002 in                  Directive 89/48/EEC (1) of 21 December 1988 on a
the case of Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH & Co. against                       general system for the recognition of higher-education
                         Putsch GmbH                                      diplomas awarded on completion of professional edu-
                                                                          cation and training of at least three years’ duration directly
                        (Case C-100/02)                                   applicable so that a national of a Member State may rely
                                                                          directly on the provisions of the directive where it has
                                                                          not been correctly transposed into national law?
                        (2002/C 144/25)
                                                                     2.   Is Article 3, in conjunction with Article 4, of Council
                                                                          Directive 92/51/EEC (2) of 18 June 1992 on a second
                                                                          general system for the recognition of professional edu-
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    cation and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof                    directly applicable so that, in the absence of implementing
(Federal Court of Justice) of 7 February 2002, received at the            measures enacted within the period prescribed for that
Court Registry on 18 March 2002, for a preliminary ruling in              purpose, a national of a Member State may rely on
the case of Gerolsteiner Brunnen GmbH & Co. against Putsch                those provisions of the directive as against all national
GmbH on the following questions:                                          provisions that are not in conformity with the directive?
 ---pagebreak--- C 144/16               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       15.6.2002
If the answer to question 1 and/or question 2 is in the                  6.    If Article 3, first paragraph, of Directive 92/51/EEC
affirmative:                                                                   applies to professional teaching qualifications awarded
                                                                               after only two years’ higher education and training in
3.    Does Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988                     Austria:
      on a general system for the recognition of higher-
      education diplomas awarded on completion of pro-
      fessional education and training of at least three years’                In the event of failure to transpose Directive 92/51/EEC
      duration, or Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June                      within the period prescribed in Article 17 thereof, does
      1992 on a second general system for the recognition                      Article 3, first paragraph, under (a), of that directive give
      of professional education and training to supplement                     rise to an entitlement to have a teaching qualification
      Directive 89/48/EEC preclude national legislation (in this               awarded in a Member State treated in the same way as
      instance, the Verordnung des baden-württembergischen                     the corresponding qualification for a teaching career in
      Kultusministeriums zur Umsetzung der Richtlinie 89/48/                   the host Member State without the host Member State
      EWG des Rates vom 21. Dezember 1988 über eine                            being permitted — where the particular conditions are
      allgemeine Regelung zur Anerkennung der Hochschuldi-                     fulfilled — first of all to require compensating measures
      plome, die eine mindestens dreijährige Berufsausbildung                  to be applied under Article 4 of the directive?
      abschließen, für Lehrerberufe vom 15.08.1996 (Baden-
      Württemberg Ministry of Education regulation for the
      teaching profession of 15.08.1996 transposing Council
      Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general               (1) OJ L 019 of 24.1.1989, p. 16.
                                                                         (2) OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 25.
      system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas
      awarded on completion of professional education and
      training of at least three years’ duration, ‘EU-EWR-
      LehrerVO’) which makes recognition of a professional
      teaching qualification awarded or recognised in another
      Member State of the European Union
      a)    conditional, without exception, on completion of
            higher education and training of at least three years’
            duration,
      b)    requires the qualification to comprise at least two of       Action brought on 27 March 2002 by the Commission of
            the subjects stipulated for the teaching profession in       the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
            question in Baden-Württemberg?                                                           Netherlands
If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative:
4.    Is the second subparagraph of Article 1(a) of Directive                                     (Case C-113/02)
      89/48/EEC to be interpreted as meaning that the qualifi-
      cation for the profession of primary-school teacher
      awarded on the basis of the former two-year system of                                       (2002/C 144/27)
      education and training in Austria is to be treated in the
      same way as a diploma within the meaning of the first
      subparagraph of Article 1(a) of Directive 89/48/EEC
      where the competent authority in Austria confirms that
      the examination certificate awarded following education            An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
      and training of two years’ duration is recognised, for the         before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
      purposes of the application of the second subparagraph             on 27 March 2002 by the Commission of the European
      of Article 1(a) of Directive 89/48/EEC, as being of a              Communities, represented by H. van Lier, acting as Agent,
      level equivalent to the diploma (examination certificate)          assisted by M. van Der Woude and R. Wezenbeek-Geuke,
      currently awarded after three years’ study and confers the         lawyers.
      same rights in Austria in respect of the taking up or
      pursuit of the profession of primary-school teacher?
If the answer to question 2 is in the affirmative:                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
5.    Is Article 3, second paragraph, of Directive 92/51/EEC
      to be interpreted, with regard to the recognition of               —     declare that the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed
      professional teaching qualifications, as meaning that the                to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(4) of Council
      prerequisite of a ‘post-secondary course of more than                    Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 (1) of 1 February 1993 on
      four years’ duration,’ specified in that provision, only                 the supervision and control of shipments of waste
      encompasses the prescribed higher education and training                 within, into and out of the European Community and
      (higher-education studies) or as meaning that the pro-                   Articles 1(e) and (f) and 7(1) of Council Directive 75/442/
      bationary period of teaching practice (probationary ser-                 EEC (2) of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council
      vice) counts towards the ‘post-secondary course of more                  Directive 91/156/EEC (3) of 18 March 1991, and under
      than four years’ duration’?                                              Article 82 EC in conjunction with Article 86 EC;