CELEX: C1998/278/41
Language: en
Date: 1998-09-05 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 10 July 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic (Case C-252/98)

5.9.98                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 278/23
The Commission of the European Communities claims                  1. Should Articles 6 and/or 52 of the EC Treaty be
that the Court should:                                                 interpreted as precluding as incompatible therewith a
                                                                       restriction resulting from the legislation of a Member
                                                                       State concerning the taxation of assets, which grants a
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations              shareholder an exemption from wealth tax in respect
    and administrative measures necessary in order to                  of capital invested in shares in an undertaking Ð
    comply with Council Directive 89/594/EEC of                        provided the shares form part of a material
    30 October 1989 amending Directives 73/362/EEC,                    shareholding Ð but restricts that exemption to shares
    77/452/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/1026/EEC and 80/154/                    in a company established in that Member State?
    EEC relating to the mutual recognition of diplomas,
    certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications
    as doctors, nurses responsible for general care, dental        2. If question 1 is answered in the negative, should
    practitioners, veterinary surgeons and midwives,                   Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty be interpreted
    together with Directives 75/363/EEC, 78/1027/EEC                   as precluding as incompatible therewith a restrictive
    and 80/155/EEC concerning the coordination of                      provision such as that described in question 1?
    provisions laid down by law, regulation or
    administrative action relating to the activities of
    doctors, veterinary surgeons and midwives (1), the
    French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
    under Directive 89/594/EEC,
                                                                   Action brought on 10 July 1998 by the Commission of the
Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.                          European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                            (Case C-252/98)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                          (98/C 278/41)
Under the third paragraph of Article 189 and Article 5 of          An action against the French Republic was brought before
the EC Treaty, each Member State is required to take all           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
necessary measures to transpose directives into its                10 July 1998 by the Commission of the European
domestic legal order prior to the expiry of the time limit         Communities, represented by Antonio Caeiro, Principal
prescribed for doing so. That time limit, laid down in             Legal Adviser, and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service,
Article 28 of Directive 89/594/EEC, expired on 8 May               acting as Agents, with an address for service in
1991, but France has not communicated the provisions of            Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
domestic law to be adopted.                                        Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
(1) OJ L 341, 23.11.1989, p. 19.
                                                                   The Commission of the European Communities claims
                                                                   that the Court should:
                                                                   Ð declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                       and administrative measures necessary in order to
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te               comply with Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty, as
's-Gravenhage in the case of C. Baars Jr against Inspecteur            interpreted by the Court of Justice in its judgments in
der Belastingdienst Particulieren/Ondernemingen Gorin-                 Heylens (1) and Vlassopoulou (2), with regard to
                             chem                                      persons who hold a diploma as a specialist nurse
                                                                       obtained by the direct route' which has not been
                       (Case C-251/98)                                 officially approved in France and who wish to pursue
                                                                       in that country the profession of a nurse providing
                        (98/C 278/40)
                                                                       general care, and, in particular, by requiring such
                                                                       persons systematically to sit the final examinations
                                                                       covering the whole of the programme contained in the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 three years of study required to qualify as a nurse,
European Communities by judgment of the Gerechtshof te                 without first taking into account the training already
's-Gravenhage (Regional Court of Appeal, The Hague) of                 acquired by the person concerned in another Member
8 July 1998, received at the Court Registry on 10 July                 State, albeit that a partial or total dispensation has
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of C. Baars Jr              been allowed by France, the French Republic has
against Inspecteur der Belastingdienst Particulieren/                  failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty,
Ondernemingen (Inspector, Head of the Tax Office Unit
responsible for Individuals/Undertakings) Gorinchem on
the following questions:                                           Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 278/24              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     5.9.98
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 Ð order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The Commission considers that the principles developed
by the case-law cited in its claim apply to professions and
situations which fall within the scope of general system'          The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to
Directives or sectorial' Directives but in which the               those in Case C-250/98 (2); the time limit prescribed for
conditions needing to be fulfilled under those Directives in        the transposition of the Directive expired on 1 February
order to enjoy recognition have not been complied with.             1997.
Even where a Directive concerning the mutual recognition
of diplomas does not apply, the Member States are obliged
to ensure freedom of movement for migrant workers,                  (1) OJ L 196, 7.8.1996, p. 8.
                                                                    (2) See page 22 of this Official Journal.
whether they are employed or self-employed. It would be
inconsistent for Directives which are designed to provide
for mutual recognition to have a restrictive effect on
freedom of establishment by denying a Community
national holding a diploma which does not fulfil the
conditions laid down by those Directives the possibility of
relying on the Vlassopoulou case-law when he could
certainly have done so in the absence of such Directives.           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberste
                                                                    Gerichtshof, Austria by judgment of that court of 30 June
                                                                    1998 in the case of Schutzverband gegen unlauteren
(1) Judgment of 15 October 1987 in Case 222/86 Heylens [1987]             Wettbewerb against TK-Heimdienst Sass GmbH
    ECR p. 4097.
(2) Judgment of 7 May 1991 in Case C-340/89 Vlassopoulou                                    (Case C-254/98)
    [1991] ECR I-2357.                                                                        (98/C 278/43)
                                                                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                    European Communities by judgment of the Oberste
                                                                    Gerichtshof (Supreme Court), Austria, received at the
                                                                    Court Registry on 13 July 1998, for a preliminary ruling
Action brought on 10 July 1998 by the Commission of the             in the case of Schutzverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb
  European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium               against TK-Heimdienst Sass GmbH on the following
                                                                    question:
                       (Case C-253/98)
                        (98/C 278/42)
                                                                    Is Article 30 of the EC Treaty to be interpreted as
                                                                    precluding legislation under which bakers, butchers and
                                                                    grocers may not offer for sale on rounds from locality to
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                locality or from door to door goods which they are
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities             entitled to sell under the terms of their trading licence
on 10 July 1998 by the Commission of the European                   unless they also carry on their trade from fixed business
Communities, represented by Frank Benyon, Legal                     premises situated in the administrative district in which
Adviser, and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting           they offer the goods for sale in the abovementioned
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at             manner or in a municipality adjacent thereto, and
the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,               furthermore may offer for sale on rounds from locality to
Kirchberg.                                                          locality or from door to door only such goods as are also
                                                                    offered for sale at the said fixed business premises?
The Commission of the European Communities claims
that the Court should:
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations           Action brought on 14 July 1998 by the Kingdom of Spain
     and administrative measures necessary in order to                 against the Commission of the European Communities
     comply with Commission Directive 96/40/EC of                                           (Case C-255/98)
     25 June 1996 establishing a common model for an
     identity card for inspectors carrying out port State                                     (98/C 278/44)
     control (1), alternatively by failing within the
     prescribed time limit to communicate the measures
     necessary to comply therewith, the Kingdom of                  An action against the Commission of the European
     Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under             Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
     Article 2 of that Directive and under the EC Treaty,           the European Communities on 14 July 1998 by the