CELEX: C2003/304/25
Language: en
Date: 2003-12-13 00:00:00
Title: Case C-441/03: Action brought on 15 October 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

13.12.2003              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 304/17
within Directive 78/686/EEC are at a disadvantage in Austria                       the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its
because they must use the professional title ‘dentist’ there,                      obligations under Article 18(1) of Directive 79/409/EEC,
while they are in direct competition with ‘specialists in dental,                  or has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 23(1) of
oral and maxillo-facial surgery’. Furthermore, nationals of                        Directive 92/43/EEC to comply with the directive;
other Member States staying in Austria must be able to rely on
an unambiguous title. Otherwise uncertainty is created which                 —     declare that Article 13(3) of the Natuurbeschermingswet
could harm all patients from the Community. Since a ‘specialist                    (law on the protection of nature) is contrary to Article 6(4)
in dental, oral and maxillo-facial surgery’ is regarded under the                  of Directive 92/43/EEC;
contested Law as a ‘specialist’ and a ‘dentist’ is regarded as a
‘doctor’, it is clear that a specialist falling within Article 19b of
Directive 78/686/EEC does not practice under the same                        —     order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
conditions as a ‘dentist’.
(1) OJ L 233, 24.8.1978, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 233, 24.8.1978, p. 10.
                                                                             Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                             Although the Commission can in principle accept the measures
                                                                             which the Netherlands has proposed in order to remedy the
                                                                             failure found by the Commission in its formal notice of default,
                                                                             the Commission must find that at the present time the
                                                                             Netherlands is still in default since the proposed measures have
                                                                             not yet been adopted or brought into force.
Action brought on 15 October 2003 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
                                                                             (1) OJ L 103 of 25 April 1979, p. 1.
                             Netherlands                                     (2) OJ L 206 of 22 July 1992, p. 7.
                           (Case C-441/03)
                           (2003/C 304/25)
                                                                             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad der
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought
                                                                             Nederlanden by judgment of that Court of 17 October
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                             2003 in the case of Götz Leffler against Berlin Chemie
15 October 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                                   AG, a company incorporated under German law
Communities, represented by M. van Beek, as agent.
                                                                                                         (Case C-443)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—    declare that by failing to bring into force the laws,                                             (2003/C 304/26)
     regulations and administrative provisions in order to:
     —      fulfil the obligations of the Kingdom of the Nether-
            lands under Article 4(1) and (2) of the Council                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
            Directive of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of                 European Communities by judgment of the Hoge Raad der
            wild birds (79/409/EEC) (1), or in any event by failing          Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) of 17 Octo-
            to inform the Commission of those provisions, and                ber 2003, received at the Court Registry on 20 October 2003,
                                                                             for a preliminary ruling in the case of Götz Leffler against
                                                                             Berlin Chemie AG, a company incorporated under German
     —      fulfil the obligations of the Kingdom of the Nether-
                                                                             law on the following questions:
            lands under Article 6(1), in conjunction with
            Article 2(1) and Article 1(a), (e) and (i), and
            Articles 6(2), (3) and (4), 7, 11, 14(1) and (2), and            1.    Must Article 8(1) of the Regulation (1) be construed as
            15 of Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the                        meaning that, in the event of refusal by an addressee to
            conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna                     accept a document on the ground of failure to comply
            and flora, (2) or in any event by failing to inform the                with the language requirement laid down in Article 8(1),
            Commission thereof,                                                    it is possible for the sender to rectify that failure?