CELEX: C2002/056/19
Language: en
Date: 2002-03-02 00:00:00
Title: Case C-3/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Veneto by order of 24 October 2001 in the case of Alessandro Mosconi and the Ordine Degli Ingegneri di Verona e Provincia against Soprintendenza per i Beni Ambientali e Architittonici di Venezia — Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali

C 56/10               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         2.3.2002
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht                (b) Do Articles 10 and 11 of Directive 85/384/EEC — which
Düsseldorf by order of that court of 19 December 2001                       state that a qualification as a civil engineer is to be treated
in the case of Privat-Molkerei Borgmann GmbH & Co. KG                       as equivalent to that of architect for the purposes of
                against Hauptzollamt Bochum                                 entitlement to provide services in the professional field of
                                                                            architecture — require a Member State not to exclude
                                                                            from entitlement to provide the services in question
                         (Case C-1/02)
                                                                            persons who have successfully completed in that Member
                                                                            State a course of studies such as those completed by
                        (2002/C 56/18)                                      those holding civil engineering qualifications in Italy?
                                                                       (c)  On the assumption that there is substantive similarity
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      between the course of studies and professional training
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Düssel-                  pursued by architects and by civil engineers, does the
dorf (Finance Court Düsseldorf) of 19 December 2001, which                  principle of equality, as a general principle of Community
was received at the Court Registry on 7 January 2002, for a                 law, require in any event that persons holding qualifi-
preliminary ruling in the case of Privat-Molkerei Borgmann                  cations in civil engineering be also allowed to pursue
GmbH & Co. KG against Hauptzollamt Bochum on the                            activities reserved for architects?
following question:
Does the penalty regulation in the second paragraph of Article         (1) OJ L 223 of 10.6.1985, p. 15.
3(2)of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March
1993 (OJ EC L 57, p. 12) as amended pursuant to Commission
Regulation (EC) No 1001/98 of 13 May 1998 (OJ EC L 142,
p. 22) contravene the proportionality rule in cases where the
time-limit is exceeded only marginally and moreover without
fault?
                                                                       Action brought on 10 January 2002 by the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities against the French Republic
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
                                                                                                  (Case C-6/02)
Amministrativo Regionale per il Veneto by order of
24 October 2001 in the case of Alessandro Mosconi and
the Ordine Degli Ingegneri di Verona e Provincia against                                         (2002/C 56/20)
Soprintendenza per i Beni Ambientali e Architittonici di
   Venezia — Ministero per i Beni e le Attività Culturali
                         (Case C-3/02)
                                                                       An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                       Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 January
                        (2002/C 56/19)                                 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                       represented by H. van Lier and J. Adda, acting as Agents, with
                                                                       an address for service in Luxembourg.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Tribunale Amministra-
tivo Regionale per il Veneto (Regional Administrative Court,           The Commission of the European Communities claims that
Venice) of 24 October 2001, received at the Court Registry on          the Court should:
8 January 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Alessandro Mosconi and the Ordine Degli Ingegneri di Verona
                                                                       —    declare that, by maintaining the national legal protection
e Provincia (Order of Engineers of the City and Province of
                                                                            afforded to the designations ‘Salaisons d’Auvergne’, ‘Label
Verona) against Soprintendenza per i Beni Ambientali e
                                                                            régional Savoie’, ‘Label régional Franche-Comté’, ‘Label
Architittonici di Venezia — Ministero per i Beni e le Attività
                                                                            régional Corse’, ‘Label régional Midi-Pyrénées’, ‘Label
Culturali (Authority responsible for the environmental and
                                                                            régional Normandie’, ‘Label régional Nord-Pas-de-Calais’,
architectural heritage of Venice — Ministry of Cultural Assets
                                                                            ‘Label régional Ardennes de France’, ‘Label régional
and Activities) on the following questions
                                                                            Limousin’, ‘Label régional Languedoc-Roussillon’, and
                                                                            ‘Label régional Lorraine’, the French Republic has failed
(a)   Must Council Directive 85/384/EEC of 10 June 1985 (1)                 to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC;
      be interpreted as meaning that, precisely because it lays
      down rules of minimum harmonisation, its provisions
      must be applied to purely internal situations?                   —    order the French Republic to pay the costs.