CELEX: C2002/056/20
Language: en
Date: 2002-03-02 00:00:00
Title: Case C-6/02: Action brought on 10 January 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

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.
 ---pagebreak--- 2.3.2002              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 56/11
Pleas in law and main arguments                                        ments for taxing capital gains in the case of transfer of tax
                                                                       residence, such as result from Article 167 a of the General Tax
The national provisions establishing the label ‘Salaisons d’Au-        Code, as inserted by Article 24 of the 1999 Finance Law of
vergne’ and the regional labels may affect the free movement           30 December 1998, in the version in force at the date of the
of goods between Member States, particularly inasmuch as               challenged decree.
those provisions favour the marketing of goods of national
origin, to the disadvantage of imported goods. The application
of those provisions creates and maintains, in itself, a difference
between the treatment afforded to those two categories of
goods. Outside the material scope of Council Regulation
No 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications               Action brought on 28 January 2002 by the Commission
and designations of origin for agricultural products and               of the European Communities against the French Republic
foodstuffs (1), the concept of ‘indications of source’ approved
by the Court of Justice is capable of justifying an obstacle to                                 (Case C-16/02)
the free movement of goods only if it serves to protect
the significant reputation acquired by a product amongst                                        (2002/C 56/22)
consumers or a particular foodstuff originating in a certain
region. In the Commission’s view, the label ‘Salaisons d’Auverg-
ne’ and the regional labels do not constitute ‘indications of          An action against the French Republic was brought before the
source’ within the meaning of the Court’s case-law, inasmuch           Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 January
as they are attached not to a product or to a particular               2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
foodstuff but to groups of products the special reputation of          represented by M. Nolin, acting as Agent, with an address for
which is, however, neither alleged nor established.                    service in Luxembourg.
(1) OJ L 208 of 24.7.1992, p. 1.                                       The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                       the Court should:
                                                                       —     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
                                                                             administrative measures necessary in order to comply
                                                                             with Commission Directive 1999/51/EC of 26 May 1999
                                                                             adapting to technical progress for the fifth time Annex I
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Conseil
                                                                             to Council Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximations
d’État section du contentieux, by order of 14 December
                                                                             of the laws, regulations, and administrative provisions of
2002 in the case of Hughes de Lasteyrie du Saillant against
                                                                             the Member States relating to restrictions on the market-
  Ministère de l’Économie, des Finances et de l’Industrie
                                                                             ing and use of certain dangerous substances and prep-
                                                                             arations (tin, PCP and cadmium) (1), or at any rate by
                         (Case C-9/02)                                       failing to notify those measures to the Commission, the
                                                                             French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                        (2002/C 56/21)                                       the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 2(1)
                                                                             of that directive;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 —     order the French Republic to pay the costs.
European Communities by order of the French Conseil d’État,
section du contentieux (Council of State, ruling in a conten-
tious matter), received at the Court Registry on 14 January            Pleas in law and main arguments
2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Hughes de
Lasteyrie du Saillant against Ministère de l’Économie, des            The obligation imposed on Member States by the third
Finances et de l’Industrie (Ministry for the Economy, Finance          paragraph of Article 249 EC is such as to require them to
and Industry) on the following question:                               comply with the time-limits laid down in directives. The time-
Does the principle of freedom of establishment laid down in            limit in the present case expired on 29 February 2000 but
Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43          France has not adopted the requisite measures.
EC) preclude the introduction by a Member State, for the
purpose of preventing the risk of tax avoidance, of arrange-           (1) OJ L 142 of 5 June 1999, p. 22.