Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document C2004/118/32

    Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 April 2004 in Case C-102/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart): Ingeborg Beuttenmüller v Land Baden-Württemberg (Freedom of movement for workers — Recognition of diplomas — Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC — Primary and secondary school teachers — Holder of a diploma of post-secondary studies of two years' duration — Conditions for the exercise of the profession)

    OV C 118, 30.4.2004, p. 18–19 (ES, DA, DE, EL, EN, FR, IT, NL, PT, FI, SV)

    30.4.2004   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 118/18


    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

    (Fifth Chamber)

    of 29 April 2004

    in Case C-102/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart): Ingeborg Beuttenmüller v Land Baden-Württemberg (1)

    (Freedom of movement for workers - Recognition of diplomas - Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC - Primary and secondary school teachers - Holder of a diploma of post-secondary studies of two years' duration - Conditions for the exercise of the profession)

    (2004/C 118/32)

    Language of the case: German

    In Case C-102/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Ingeborg Beuttenmüller and Land Baden-Württemberg — on the interpretation of Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration (OJ 1989 L 19, p. 16) and Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48 (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 25) — the Court (Fifth Chamber) composed of: P. Jann, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola and S. von Bahr, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 April 2004, in which it has ruled:

    1)

    The second subparagraph of Article 1(a) of Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration must be interpreted as meaning that a qualification for the profession of teacher, such as that formerly awarded on the basis of a two-year period of education and training in Austria, is to be treated in the same way as a diploma within the meaning of the first subparagraph of that provision where the competent authority of that Member State certifies that the diploma awarded following education and training of two years' duration is recognised as being of a level equivalent to the diploma currently awarded after three years' study and confers the same rights in that Member State in respect of the taking up or pursuit of the profession of teacher. It is for the national court to determine, in the light of the evidence submitted by the applicant in accordance with Article 8(1) of that directive and the national provisions applicable to the assessment of such evidence, whether the final condition laid down by the second subparagraph of Article 1(a) must be regarded as satisfied in the case in the main proceedings. That condition concerns the right to take up a regulated profession and not the remuneration and other employment conditions applicable in the Member State which recognises the equivalence of the old and new education and training.

    2)

    Article 3(a) of Directive 89/48 may be relied upon by a national of a Member State as against national provisions inconsistent with that directive. That directive precludes such provisions where, for the purpose of recognising a professional teaching qualification awarded or recognised in a Member State other than the host Member State, they require, without exception, completion of a period of higher education and training of at least three years' duration and covering at least two of the subjects stipulated for the teaching profession in the host Member State.

    3)

    In the absence of implementing measures enacted within the period prescribed in the first subparagraph of Article 17(1) of Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48, a national of a Member State may rely on Article 3(a) of that directive in order to obtain in the host Member State recognition of a professional teaching qualification such as that awarded in Austria following education and training of two years' duration. In circumstances such as those in the case in the main proceedings, that possibility is neither excluded by reason of the application of the derogation laid down by the final subparagraph of Article 3 of that directive nor is it conditional upon the applicant first complying with any compensatory measures that may be required pursuant to Article 4 of that directive.


    (1)  OJ C 144, 15.6.2002.


    Top