CELEX: C1999/071/39
Language: en
Date: 1999-03-13 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 25 January 1999 by the French Republic against the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-17/99)

C 71/22               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   13.3.1999
    The appellant further observes that the Court of First           the European Communities on 25 January 1999 by the
    Instance misapplied the criteria for determining the             French Republic, represented by Kareen Rispal-Bellanger,
    causal link.                                                     Deputy Director responsible for matters of international
                                                                     economic law and Community law in the Ministry of
                                                                     Foreign Affairs, and FreÂdeÂrik Million, ChargeÂ de Mission,
                                                                     acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the French Embassy, 8b Boulevard
                                                                     Joseph II.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour
Administrative, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, by a                      The French Republic claims that the Court should:
judgment of 21 January 1999 in the case of Ministre de la
                    SanteÂ v Jeff Erpelding
                                                                     Ð annul the Commission's decision C(1998) 3515 final
                        (Case C-16/99)
                                                                         of 4 November 1998 concerning aid granted to
                        (1999/C 71/38)                                   Nouvelle Filature LainieÁre de Roubaix, inasmuch as it
                                                                         declares the aid granted to be incompatible with the
                                                                         common market;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of 21 January 1999
of the Cour Administrative, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg,               Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
which was received at the Court Registry on 25 January
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ministre de la         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
SanteÂ v Jeff Erpelding on the following questions:
May Article 19 of Directive 93/16/EEC (1) to facilitate the          Ð Breach of an essential rule governing the procedure for
free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of                   reviewing grants of State aid: the Commission adopted
their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal                the decision taken by it on the basis of the
qualifications be applied, in a State with provisions on this            information available to it', whereas the Court's
matter laid down by law, in favour of an applicant with a                case-law and the rule which the Commission imposes
qualification obtained in another Member State but not                   on itself, both in its publications (1) and in its
included in the list of specialist training courses contained            decision-making practice, required it to demand the
in Article 7 of the Directive who requests authorization,                Member State concerned, by interim decision
on the basis of the training he has acquired in the other                addressed to that State, to communicate to it the
Member State, to use an equivalent professional title in                 information necessary in order for it to reach its
the host State?                                                          decision.
If not,                                                              Ð Infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty.
Does Article 10 of Directive 93/16/EEC confer on holders             Ð Infringement of Article 92 of the EC Treaty: manifest
of academic titles acquired in another Member State                      error of assessment in declaring the aid in question to
merely the option of using their academic title or, where                be incompatible with the common market on the basis
appropriate, the abbreviation thereof, or, conversely,                   of Article 92(3)(c) of the EC Treaty:
should the text of the directive be interpreted to the effect
that only the academic title in the language of the country              Ð The Commission's arguments in support of its
in which it was awarded may be authorised, to the                            conclusion that the undertaking concerned was
exclusion of equivalent titles formulated in the language                    uncompetitive and, consequently, not viable on a
and according to the terminology of the host State?                          long-term basis, are either wholly irrelevant or
                                                                             deeply flawed. Whilst it is true that provision was
(1) OJ L 165, 7.7.1993, p. 1.                                                made in the 1996 financial year for the investment
                                                                             premium of FF 22 million, that year Ð involving
                                                                             as it did the aforesaid exceptional element Ð
                                                                             could not be used as the basis for assessing the Ð
                                                                             allegedly negative Ð trend shown by the net
                                                                             results in subsequent years, and thus for evaluating
Action brought on 25 January 1999 by the French                              the competitiveness of the undertaking. The
Republic against the Commission of the European                              discontinuance of one of its activities (fancy yarn')
                         Communities                                         in 1998 cannot justify the conclusion that there
                                                                             was a decrease in the competitiveness of all the
                        (Case C-17/99)                                       undertaking's activities, since it concerned a
                        (1999/C 71/39)                                       marginal activity and not, as the Commission
                                                                             claims, an important part of the activities of the
                                                                             new undertaking. Lastly, it was not open to the
An action against the Commission of the European                             Commission to infer from that factor that there
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                       was a lack of competitiveness, unless it is
 ---pagebreak--- 13.3.1999              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 71/23
         considered that an undertaking in difficulties, the         Ð set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the
         position of which in terms of pricing covers the                European Communities of 30 November 1998 in Case
         middle to the top of the range, must of necessity               T-97/94;
         abandon its strategy and adopt instead a strategy
         of price dumping Ð which does not seem to                   Ð declare the action brought by the applicant on 9 March
         accord with the spirit of the guidelines.                       1994 admissible and well founded;
     Ð The Commission's finding concerning a lack of                 Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
         proportion between State funds and the
         contribution made by the buyer does not in any              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
         way take into account the special situation of such
         buyers as the managers of the undertaking, who              Ð Infringement of Article 6 of the European Convention
         contribute sums corresponding to their personal                 on Human Rights, discrimination, breach of the
         finances and thereby show their commitment to                   principle that no person should be allowed to derive
         the restructuring plan. In addition, the                        an advantage from his own illegal acts: whilst the
         Commission has failed to take into account the                  appellant may no longer have been in the service of
         fact that the recipient undertaking constitutes a               the Commission at the time when he brought his
         small to medium-sized undertaking and the fact                  action, he was in its service at the time when he made
         that it is in an objective 2' zone, despite the fact           his complaint giving rise to the subsequent
         that provision is made for this in the guidelines.              proceedings. By failing to notify its decision rejecting
         The Commission wrongly estimates the buyer's                    his complaint until after the expiry of the period of
         contribution to amount to 12 % of the State funds               four months provided for by the Staff Regulations of
         applied; in terms of the subsidy' equivalent, the              Officials, the Commission itself created the
         proportion in question amounts to 22 %. Lastly,                 circumstances which enabled it to plead the absence of
         the restructuring measures taken (involving the                 a legal interest in bringing proceedings.
         closing down of approximately 60 % of
         production capacity, laying off of employees, etc.)         Ð Breach of the principle of the protection of, and
         clearly show that the undertaking has participated              respect for, personal rights: the Court of First Instance
         in the efforts made.                                            failed to take into account the fact that positive staff
                                                                         reports may still permit an official, even after his
     Ð As regards the criterion of preventing distortions
                                                                         service has terminated, to prove his scientific and
         of competition, the French Government considers
                                                                         professional abilities in the event of his continuing to
         that the Commission's assessment fails to take into
                                                                         pursue his professional activities, even outside the
         account the information provided by it, and that
                                                                         Community sphere.
         the decision is not sufficiently specific and
         detailed.
(1) Competition law in the European Communities', Vol. II B,
    p. 38.
                                                                           Removal from the register of Case C-204/98 (1)
                                                                                             (1999/C 71/41)
                                                                     By order of 10 December 1998 the President of the Court
Appeal brought on 29 January 1999 by N against the                   of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
order made on 30 November 1998 by the Fifth Chamber                  removal from the register of Case C-204/98: Commission
of the Court of First Instance of the European                       of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.
Communities in Case T-97/94 between N and the
          Commission of the European Communities                     (1) OJ C 234, 25.7.1998.
                        (Case C-21/99 P)
                         (1999/C 71/40)
An appeal against the order made on 30 November 1998
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                 Removal from the register of Case C-308/98 (1)
European Communities in Case T-97/94 between N and                                           (1999/C 71/42)
the Commission of the European Communities was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                     By order of 16 December 1998 the President of the Court
Communities on 29 January 1999 by N, represented by
                                                                     of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Georges Sakellaropoulos, of the Athens Bar.
                                                                     removal from the register of Case C-308/98: Commission
                                                                     of the European Communities v Ireland.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     (1) OJ C 299, 26.9.1998.
Ð declare the present appeal admissible and well
     founded;