Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 1 February 2001 in Case C-108/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles): Dennis Mac Quen, Derek Pouton, Carla Godts, Youssef Antoun and Grandvision Belgium SA, formerly Vision Express Belgium SA, being civilly liable; intervener: Union Professionnelle Belge des Médecins Spécialistes en Ophtalmologie et Chirurgie Oculaire, civil plaintiff (Interpretation of Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC) and of Articles 30, 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC) — National legislation prohibiting opticians from carrying out certain optical examinations — National legislation restricting the marketing of equipment for carrying out certain optical examinations which are reserved exclusively for ophthalmologists)
Date: 2001-06-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: freedom to provide services, health care profession, interpretation of the law, medical device, medical examination, professional qualifications

16.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 173/3

2. Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;

3. Orders the French Republic,

the
Republic of Finland and the Commission of the European
Communities to bear their own costs.

the Portuguese Republic,

(1) OJ C 113 of 11.4.1998.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 1 February 2001

in Case C-108/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles): Dennis
Mac Quen, Derek Pouton, Carla Godts, Youssef Antoun
and Grandvision Belgium SA, formerly Vision Express
Belgium SA, being civilly liable; intervener: Union Pro-
fessionnelle Belge des Médecins Spécialistes en Ophtalmo-
logie et Chirurgie Oculaire, civil plaintiff (1)

(Interpretation of Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10
EC) and of Articles 30, 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now,
after amendment, Articles 28 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC) —
legislation prohibiting opticians from carrying
National
out certain optical examinations — National
legislation
restricting the marketing of equipment for carrying out
certain optical examinations which are reserved exclusively
for ophthalmologists)

(2001/C 173/04)

(Language of the case: French)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-108/96: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal de
Première Instance de Bruxelles (Court of First Instance, Brus-
sels) for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings
pending before that court against Dennis Mac Quen, Derek
Pouton, Carla Godts, Youssef Antoun and Grandvision
Belgium SA, formerly Vision Express Belgium SA, being civilly
liable; intervener: Union Professionnelle Belge des Médecins
Spécialistes en Ophtalmologie et Chirurgie Oculaire, civil
plaintiff — on the interpretation of Article 5 of the EC Treaty
(now Article 10 EC) and of Articles 30, 52 and 59 of the EC
Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC, 43 EC and 49
EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet,
President of the First Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth
Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and P. Jann, Judges;
J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,
has given a judgment on 1 February 2001, in which it has
ruled:

that

As Community law stands at present, Article 52 of the EC Treaty
(now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) does not preclude the
competent authorities of a Member State from interpreting the
national law governing the practice of medicine in such a way that,
within the context of the correction of purely optical defects, the
objective examination of a client’s eyesight,
is to say, an
examination which does not use a method under which the client
alone determines the optical defects from which he is suffering, is
reserved, for reasons relating to the protection of public health, to a
category of professionals holding specific qualifications, such as
ophthalmologists, to the exclusion, in particular, of opticians who are
not qualified medical doctors. It is for the national court to assess, in
the light of the Treaty requirements relating to freedom of establish-
ment and the demands of legal certainty and the protection of public
health, whether the interpretation of domestic law adopted by the
competent national authorities in that regard remains a valid basis
for the prosecutions brought in the case in the main proceedings.

(1) OJ C 158 of 1.6.1996.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 1 February 2001

in Case C-66/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Finanzgericht Bremen (Germany)): D. Wandel GmbH
v Hauptzollamt Bremen (1)

(Community Customs Code and implementing regulation —
Incurrence of a customs debt on importation — Relevant
time — Concept of removal from customs supervision of
goods liable to import duty — Production of certificates of
origin — Effect)

(2001/C 173/05)

(Language of the case: German)

(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
in the European Court Reports)

In Case C-66/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Finanzgericht
(Finance Court), Bremen, (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in
the proceedings pending before that court between D. Wandel
GmbH and Hauptzollamt Bremen — on the interpretation of
Article 75, Article 201(1)(a) and (2), Article 203(1) and
Article 204(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of
12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code
(OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
of: C. Gulmann, President of
the Chamber, V. Skouris,
J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and F. Macken,
Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
1 February 2001, in which it has ruled: