CELEX: C1999/226/29
Language: en
Date: 1999-08-07 00:00:00
Title: Case C-200/99: Action brought on 26 May 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

C 226/18               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      7.8.1999
1. When determining whether the Applicant, as a British                     (c) Give rise to directly effective rights which citizens of
   Overseas Citizen not entitled (under United Kingdom law)                      the Union may invoke before national courts and
   to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, is a ‘person                        tribunals.
   holding the nationality of a Member State’ and therefore is
   ‘a citizen of the Union’ for the purpose of Article 8 of the
   EC Treaty:                                                               (d) Apply to situations which are wholly internal to a
                                                                                 single Member State?
   (1) What is the effect (if any) as a master of Community
        law of
        (a) the United Kingdom’s 1972 Declaration ‘on the
            definition of the term “nationals”’ which was
            made at the time of Accession to the European
            Communities and annexed to the Final Act of the
            Accession Conference, and
                                                                        Action brought on 26 May 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities against the United Kingdom
                                                                                     of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
        (b) the United Kingdom’s 1982 Declaration ‘on the
            meaning of a UK national’ and
                                                                                                 (Case C-200/99)
        (c) Declaration No. 2 to the Treaty on European Union
            signed on 7 February 1992 that nationality is to be                                  (1999/C 226/29)
            decided solely by reference to the national law of
            the Member State concerned and Member States
            may declare, for information, who are to be                 An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
            considered to be their nationals for Community              Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of
            purposes?                                                   the European Communities on 26 May 1999 by the Com-
                                                                        mission of the European Communities, represented by Mr
                                                                        Peter Oliver, Legal Adviser, acting as agent, with an address for
                                                                        service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Cómez de la
   (2) If and to the extent that the United Kingdom is not              Cruz, member of the Legal Service of the Commission, Centre
        entitled, as a matter of Community law, to rely on the          Wagner, Kirchberg.
        Declarations referred to in (1) above, what are the
        relevant criteria for identifying whether a person has
        nationality of a Member State for the purposes of               The Applicant claims that the Court should:
        Article 8 where domestic law identifies various categor-
        ies of nationality only some of which confer a right to
        enter and remain in that Member State?                          — declare that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations or
                                                                            administrative provisions necessary to comply with (i)
                                                                            Council Directive 95/68/EC (1) amending Directive
                                                                            77/99/EEC (2) on health problems affecting the production
   (3) In this context, what is the effect of the principle of              and marketing of meat products and certain other products
        respect for fundamental human rights under Com-                     of animal origin, and (ii) Council Directive 96/90 (3)
        munity law claimed by the Applicant, in particular                  amending Directive 92/118/EEC (4) laying clown animal
        where the Applicant relies on Article 3(2) of the Fourth            health and public health requirements governing trace in
        Protocol to the European Convention on Human                        and imports into the Community of products not subject
        Rights that no one shall be deprived of the right to                to the said requirements laid down in specific Community
        enter the territory of the State of which he is a national,         rules referred to in Annex A (1) to Directive 89/662/EEC (5)
        which has not been ratified by the United Kingdom?                  and, as regards pathogens, to Directive 90/425/EEC(6); the
                                                                            United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                            this Directive and under the Treaty; and
2. In the circumstances of the present case, does Article 8a(1)
   of the EC Treaty:
                                                                        — order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
   (a) Confer rights on a citizen of the Union to enter and
        remain in the Member State of which he is a national            Pleas in law and main arguments
        even where those rights are otherwise denied by
        national law.
                                                                        Article 249 CE (ex article 189) under which a directive shall
                                                                        be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member
   (b) Confer rights additional to those which existed under            State, carries by implication an obligation on the Member
        the EC Treaty prior to its amendment by the Treaty on           States to observe the period for compliance laid down in the
        European Union.                                                 directive. That period has expired without the United Kingdom
 ---pagebreak--- 7.8.1999                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 226/19
having enacted the provisions necessary to comply with the                2. The ‘recognition’ directive precludes a doctor who holds a
directives referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.                   single degree and a single professional qualification from
                                                                               being included simultaneously in the register of medical
                                                                               practitioners and in that of dental practitioners;
(1) of 22 December 1995, OJ L 332, 30.12.1995, p. 10.
(2) Council Directive 77/99/EEC of 21 December 1976 on health             3. It appears to the Commission that, so far as professional
    problems affecting intra-Community trade in meat products OJ               title is concerned, doctors who practise in Italy mainly as
    L 026, 31.1.1977, p. 85.                                                   dentists do not practise with the title ‘odontoiatra’ (dental
(3) of 17 December 1996, OJ L 013, 16.1.1997, p. 24.                           practitioner) but with that of ‘medico dentists’ (doctor
(4) of 17 December 1992, OJ L 062, 15.3.1993, p. 49.                           dentist), a title which was not notified to the Commission.
(5) of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intra-
    Community trade with a view to the completion of the internal              The Commission submits that the present situation runs
    market. OJ L 395, 30.12.89, p. 13.                                         counter to the coordinated system established by the
(6) of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks              ‘dental practitioner’ directives. A situation of this kind
    applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and            creates confusion in a host Member State and adversely
    products with a view to the completion of the internal market. OJ          affects professionals seeking to exercise their right of free
    L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 29.                                                   movement, whose qualifications may be challenged by the
                                                                               host State and held to be at variance with the directives.
                                                                          (1) Council directive of 25.7.1978, OJ L 233 of 24 August 1978,
                                                                              p. 10.
Action brought on 26 May 1999 by the Commission of
  the European Communities against the Italian Republic                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Højesteret by
                                                                          order of 21 May 1999 in the case of Henning Veedfald v
                          (Case C-202/99)                                                      Århus Regional Authority
                                                                                                    (Case C-203/99)
                          (1999/C 226/30)
                                                                                                    (1999/C 226/31)
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 May
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
represented by Enrico Traverso, Legal Adviser, and Bernard                European Communities by order of 21 May 1999 by the
Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address           Højesteret (Danish Supreme Court), which was received at the
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la            Court Registry on 26 May 1999, for a preliminary ruling in
Cruz, Wagner Centre, Rue Alcide de Gasperi.                               the case of Henning Veedfald v Århus Regional Authority on
                                                                          the following questions:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          Question 1:
1. declare that, by maintaining a second system of training
     for entry into the dental profession which is contrary to            Must Article 7(a) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC (1) of 25 July
     Directive 78/687/EEC (1), and by maintaining the possi-              1985 be construed as meaning that a defective product is not
     bility for doctors who practise as dentists to be doubly             put into circulation if the producer of the defective product, in
     registered in the registers of medical and dental prac-              the course of providing a specific medical service, produces
     titioners, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obli-       and uses the product on a human organ which, at the time
     gations under Directive 78/687/EEC;                                  when the damage occurred, had been removed from a donor’s
                                                                          body in order to be prepared for transplant into another
                                                                          person’s body, with resulting damage to the organ?
2. order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                          Question 2:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Must Article 7(c) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July
1. It is clear to the Commission that the second training                 1985 be construed as meaning that a publicly owned hospital
     provided for by Law No 409 of 24 July 1985 (dental                   is free from liability under the directive for products produced
     training lasting three years) does not meet the mandatory            and used by that hospital in the course of providing a specific
     requirements of Article 1 of the ‘coordination’ directive,           publicly financed service to the person suffering injury and in
     which calls for special dental training lasting five years;          respect of which that person has not paid any consideration?