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 (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)
Date: 2001-06-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: customs debt, customs regulations, free circulation, import, interpretation of the law

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:

C 173/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.6.2001

1. Where an examination of goods has been ordered by the
customs authority for the purposes of verifying a declaration
which has been accepted and it has proved impossible to carry
out the examination because the goods have been removed from
the place of temporary storage without the authorisation of the
relevant customs authority, the customs debt on importation is
incurred under Article 203(1) of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community
Customs Code.

2.

It is possible for a customs debt on importation to be incurred
under Article 203(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 where
the customs declaration received by the customs office was
accompanied by technically correct certificates of origin corre-
sponding to Form A and where the zero preferential tariff
applied to the goods covered by the declaration.

of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet,
D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and L. Sevo´ n, Judges;
J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 1 February 2001, in which it:

1. Declares that, since the public management and construction
entities of Val-de-Marne and Paris and the low-rent housing
corporation Logirel did not publish contract notices in the
Official Journal of the European Communities concerning
the public contracts announced by notices in the Bulletin
Officiel des Annonces des Marchés Publics of 7 and
16 February 1995 and the Moniteur des Travaux Publics et
du Bâtiment of 17 February 1995, the French Republic
has failed to fulfil
its obligations under Council Directive
93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of
procedures for the award of public works contracts, in particular
Article 11(2) thereof;

(1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.

2. Orders the French Republic to pay the costs;

3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 1 February 2001

in Case C-237/99: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v French Republic, supported by United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 1 February 2001

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive
93/37/EEC — Public works contracts — Concept of ‘con-
tracting authority’)

in Case C-333/99: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v French Republic (1)

(2001/C 173/06)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-237/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: M. Nolin) v French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-
Bellanger, F. Million and S. Pailler) supported by United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent:
R.V. Magrill) — application for a declaration that,
in the
for the award of public
context of various procedures,
contracts for the construction of housing organised by public
development and construction entities and by low-rent hous-
ing corporations, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June
1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award
of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54), in particular
Article 11(2) thereof — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Com-
munity system for the conservation and management of
fishery resources — Control of fishing and related activities
— Inspection of fishing vessels and monitoring of landings
(Article 5 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 and
Article 1(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87) — Temporary
prohibition of fishing activities (Article 11(2) of Regulation
No 2241/87) — Penal or administrative action against
those responsible for infringing the Community rules on
conservation and monitoring (Article 5(2) of Regulation
No 170/83 and Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2241/87))

(2001/C 173/07)

(Language of the case: French)

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

In Case C-333/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: T. van Rijn and B. Mongin) v French Republic