Case T-336/00: Action brought on 7 November 2000 by Anthony Goldstein against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-02-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European Commission, appeal to an administrative authority, physician, recognition of diplomas, right of establishment

C 45/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.2.2001

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

Action brought on 7 November 2000 by Anthony Gold-
stein against the Council of the European Union and the
Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 13 November 2000 by Leandro Merca-
de Llordachs against European Parliament

(Case T-336/00)

(2001/C 45/40)

(Case T-343/00)

(2001/C 45/41)

(Language of the case: English)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Council of the European Union and the
Commission of
the European Communities was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 7 November 2000 by Anthony Goldstein, represented by
Raymond St John Murphy, Solicitor of Merriman White,
London (UK).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare Directive 93/16 is in breach of Article 218 EC;

— order the defendant to pay damages in the amount of

EUR 1 000 000 to the applicant;

— order the amount of damages to bear default interest at
the annual rate of 4,5 % from the date of the judgment
until the actual payment;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case claims for damages in respect
of the Commission decision allegdly contained in the letter of
30 July 1998, inasmuch as it has considered that the grant to
him by the British Authorities of a certificate of specialist
training, as forseen in Articles 4 and 5 of Regulation 75/363
(now Articles 26 and 27 of Directive 93/16/EEC, of 5 April
1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual
recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence
of formal qualifications (1)), was illegal, because contrary to the
Directive.

The applicant submits as well, on the basis of Article 241 of
the EC Treaty, the illegality of the above mentioned directive.
It is stated on this point tat the English text of this Directive
does not correspond to the French text and that the discrep-
ancies constitute a manifest error and grave attempt by the
Council to alter the sense of a provision of Community Law
and compromise its objectives.

An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
13 November 2000 by Leandro Mercade Llordachs, residing
in Woluwé-Saint-Pierre (Belgium), represented by Jean-Noël
Louis and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the President of the European
Parliament of 15 March 2000 to transfer the applicant
from the European Parliament to the European Com-
mission;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case objects to the decision of the
defendant annulling the decision of 12 February 1998, where-
by he was transferred from the Commission to the European
Parliament. It is precisely on the basis of that transfer decision
that he was appointed in the latter institution to the post of
Head of Division at Grade A 3. The decision at issue was taken
in compliance with the judgment delivered by the Court of
First Instance on 15 December 1999 in T-144/98 Cantoreggi
v European Parliament (1), which annulled the abovementioned
transfer decision.

In support of his arguments the applicant alleges:

— breach of the duty to provide reasons, inasmuch as the

contested decision was not notified to him.

— infringement of Article 233 of the Treaty, inasmuch as
the Court of First Instance did not annul the decision of
12 February 1998 in so far as it transferred the applicant
from the Commission to the Parliament. In fact, the
question of the legality of the transfer decision at issue
was not raised before the Court in Case T-144/98.

(1) OJ EEC L 165, of 7.7.1993, p. 1.

(1) ECR 1999, p. FP-IA-271, II-1325.