Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 November 2001 in Case C-221/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Giudice di Pace di Genova ): Giuseppe Conte v Stefania Rossi (Architects' fees — Summary procedure for the recovery of debts — Opinion of the professional association — Articles 5 and 85 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 10 EC and 81 EC))
Date: 2002-04-06
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: engineer, fixing of prices, income in addition to normal pay, interpretation of the law, professional society, town-planning profession

C 84/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.4.2002

2.

The fact that, in concluding a collective agreement specific to
one undertaking, a domestic employer can pay wages lower
than the minimum wage laid down in a collective agreement
declared to be generally applicable, whilst an employer estab-
lished in another Member State cannot do so, constitutes an
unjustified restriction on the freedom to provide services.

1. Declares that, by providing for a second system of training
leading to entry to the profession of dentist, which does not
comply with Council Directive 78/687/EEC of 25 July 1978
concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law,
regulation or administrative action in respect of the activities of
dental practitioners, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
obligations under that directive.

(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action.

3. Orders the Italian Republic and the Commission of

the

European Communities to pay their own costs.

(1) OJ C 226 of 7.8.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 29 November 2001

in Case C-202/99: Commission of the European Communi-
ties v Italian Republic (1)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 78/687/EEC — Maintenance of a second system of
training leading to entry to the profession of dentist —
Maintenance of the possibility of dual registration in the
register of doctors and in that of dentists for doctors
mentioned in Article 19 of Directive 78/686/EEC)

(2002/C 84/06)

(Language of the case: Italian)

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

In Case C-202/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: E. Traversa and B. Mongin) v Italian Republic (Agent:
U. Leanza, assisted by P. G. Ferri) — application for a
declaration that, by maintaining a second system of training
for entry into the dental profession, which is contrary to
Council Directive 78/687/EEC of 25 July 1978 concerning the
coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or
administrative action in respect of the activities of dental
practitioners (OJ 1978 L 233, p. 10), and by maintaining the
possibility for doctors who practise as dentists to be doubly
registered in the registers of medical and dental practitioners,
the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
that directive — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
P. Jann, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rappor-
teur), A. La Pergola, L. Sevo´ n and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges;
P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 November 2001, in
which it:

(Fifth Chamber)

of 29 November 2001

in Case C-221/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Giudice di Pace di Genova ): Giuseppe Conte v
Stefania Rossi (1)

(Architects’ fees — Summary procedure for the recovery of
debts — Opinion of the professional association — Articles 5
and 85 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 10 EC and 81 EC))

(2002/C 84/07)

(Language of the case: Italian)

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

In Case C-221/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC from the Giudice di Pace di Genova (Magistrate’s Court,
Genoa)
(Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
pending before that court between Giuseppe Conte and
Stefania Rossi — on the interpretation of Articles 5 and 85 of
the EC Treaty (now Articles 10 EC and 81 EC) — the Court
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: S. von Bahr, President of the
Fourth Chamber, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber,
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and
Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General;
C.W.A. Timmermans,
H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 29 November 2001, in which it has ruled:

6.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 84/5

legislation which,

1. Articles 5 and 85 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 10 EC and
81 EC) do not preclude national
in the
context of a summary procedure for the recovery of debts relating
to the fees of an architect, a member of a professional
association, requires the court seised of the dispute to follow the
opinion of that association in relation to the settlement of those
fees in so far as that opinion ceases to be binding where the
debtor initiates proceedings inter partes.

2. Articles 5 and 85 of the Treaty do not preclude national
legislation which provides that the members of a profession may
set at their discretion the fees for certain services which they
perform.

(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

8 January 2002

in Case C-248/99 P: French Republic v Monsanto Com-
pany (1)

(Appeal — Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 — Application to
include a recombinant bovine somatotrophin (BST) in the
list of substances not subject to a maximum residue limit —
Prohibition on placing that substance on the market —
Rejection of the application for inclusion)

(2002/C 84/08)

(Language of the case: English)

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

initially
In Case C-248/99 P, French Republic (agents:
R. Abraham and J.-F. Dobelle and K. Rispal-Bellanger and
C. Vasak, and, subsequently, G. de Bergues): Appeal against
the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities
(Second Chamber) of 22 April 1999 in
Case T-112/97 Monsanto v Commission [1999] ECR II-1277,
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other parties to
the proceedings being: Monsanto Company, registered in
accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware (United
States of America), (agents: C. Stanbrook, QC, and D. Holland,
barrister), and Commission of the European Communities
(agents: J.-L. Dewost, R. Wainwright and T. Christoforou) the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the
Chamber, A. La Pergola, L. Sevo´ n (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet
and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges, Advocate General: S. Alber,
Registrar: L. Hewlett, Administrator, has given a judgment on
8 January 2002, in which it:

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities of 22 April 1999 in Case T-112/97
Monsanto v Commission;

2. Dismisses the application for annulment of Decision C(97)
148 final of the Commission of 14 January 1997 concerning
the definition of a position, in accordance with Article 175 of
the EC Treaty, on the inclusion of bovine somatotrophin in
Annex II to Regulation No 2377/90;

3. Orders Monsanto Company to bear its own costs and to
pay the costs incurred by the Commission of the European
Communities both before the Court of First Instance and the
Court of Justice;

4. Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs incurred both
before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice.

(1) OJ C 265 of 18.9.1999.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

5 February 2002

in Case C-255/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Oberster Gerichtshof): Anna Humer (1)

(Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Definition of ‘family
benefits’ — Payment of advances on maintenance payments
— Condition that the minor child must be resident within
the national territory — Entitlement to benefits abroad)

(2002/C 84/09)

(Language of the case: German)

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

In Case C-255/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court concerning the
minor Anna Humer, on the interpretation of Articles 3, 4(1)(h),
73 and 74 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
of their families moving within the Community, as amended
and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of
2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1), and of Articles 3(1)
and 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of
15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers
within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II),
p. 475), the Court, composed of: P. Jann, President of the First
and Fifth Chambers, acting for the President, F. Macken
and N. Colneric (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann,
D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet,
Judges, Advocate General:
R. Schintgen and V. Skouris,
S. Alber, Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has
given a judgment on 5 February 2002, in which it has ruled: