CELEX: C2000/335/10
Language: en
Date: 2000-11-25 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 14 September 2000 in Case C-16/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour Administrative): Ministre de la Santé v Jeff Erpelding (Council Directive 93/16/EEC — Interpretation of Articles 10 and 19 — Use of the title of specialist doctor in the host Member State by a doctor who has obtained in another Member State a qualification not included as regards that State on the list in Article 7 of the directive)

25.11.2000               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 335/5
the Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur) and H. Ragnemalm,                   of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy                  Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system
Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 Sep-                of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977
tember 2000, in which it has ruled:                                          L 145, p. 1) — the Court, composed of: L. Sevón (Rapporteur),
                                                                             President of the First Chamber, acting for the President of the
1.    Articles 3(1) and 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92             Fifth Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and
      of 27 November 1992 establishing an integrated adminis-                M. Wathelet, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,
      tration and control system for certain Community aid schemes,          Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
      coupled with the general principles of Community law, allow            on 14 September 2000, in which it has ruled:
      the competent authority, after balancing the respective interests
      of the persons concerned, to disclose data relating to crops sown
      during the preceding years, and which have been supplied by or         Article 13A(1)(c) of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of
      on behalf of a former claimant for payment under the arable            17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
      area payment scheme, to a new farmer who has need of those             States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added
      data in order to be able to apply for such payments in respect of      tax: uniform basis of assessment is to be interpreted as meaning that
      the same fields and who is unable otherwise to obtain them.            it does not apply to services consisting, not in providing care to
                                                                             persons by diagnosing and treating a disease or any other health
2.    In the event of refusal to disclose the information requested, the     disorder, but in establishing the genetic affinity of individuals through
      competent authority cannot, on the basis of the information            biological tests. The fact that the doctor acting as expert was
      which it did not provide to the applicant at the time of the           instructed by a court is irrelevant in that regard.
      application, impose penalties on him under Article 9 of
      Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December
                                                                             (1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.
      1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated
      administration and control system for certain Community aid
      schemes.
(1) OJ C 397 of 19.12.1998.
                                                                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                                        (Fifth Chamber)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                                    of 14 September 2000
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                             in Case C-16/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                      of 14 September 2000
                                                                             the Cour Administrative): Ministre de la Santé v Jeff
                                                                                                           Erpelding (1)
in Case C-384/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
            the Landesgericht St Pölten): D. v W. (1)
                                                                             (Council Directive 93/16/EEC — Interpretation of Articles
                                                                             10 and 19 — Use of the title of specialist doctor in the host
(Sixth VAT Directive — Exemption for medical care provided
in the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions                   Member State by a doctor who has obtained in another
— Supply by a doctor approved as a court expert of an                        Member State a qualification not included as regards that
                                                                                       State on the list in Article 7 of the directive)
                  opinion in a paternity dispute)
                           (2000/C 335/09)                                                              (2000/C 335/10)
                   (Language of the case: German)                                                 (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                                 in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-384/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Landesgericht St                 In Case C-16/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
Pölten (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                 the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Cour Administrat-
pending before that court between D. and W., intervener:                     ive, Luxembourg, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
Osterreichischer Bundesschatz — on the interpretation of                     pending before that court between Ministre de la Santé and
Article 13A(1)(c) of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC)                Jeff Erpelding — on the interpretation of Council Directive
 ---pagebreak--- C 335/6                    EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        25.11.2000
93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of                 d’Arrondissement de Luxembourg, Luxembourg, for a prelimi-
doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certifi-               nary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
cates and other evidence of formal qualifications (OJ 1993                   between State of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and
L 165, p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:                       Berthe Linster, Aloyse Linster and Yvonne Linster — on the
D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,                        interpretation of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June
L. Sevón, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges;                    1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and
P. Lédger, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-                   private projects on the environment (OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40),
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 September              in particular Article 1(5) thereof, and of Articles 177 and 189
2000, in which it has ruled:                                                 of the EC Treaty (now Article 249 EC) as regards the effect to
                                                                             be accorded to that directive — the Court, composed of:
1.    A doctor who has obtained in another Member State a diploma            Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,
      in specialised medicine which does not appear on the list of           L. Sevón (Rapporteur) and R. Schintgen, Presidents of Cham-
      specialist training courses in Article 7 of Council Directive          bers, P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm,
      93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of           M. Wathelet, V. Skouris and F. Macken, Judges; P. Léger,
      doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates     Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,
      and other evidence of formal qualifications may not rely on            has given a judgment on 19 September 2000, in which it has
      Article 19 of that directive to use the corresponding professional     ruled:
      title of specialist in the host State.
2.    The first sentence of Article 10(1) of Directive 93/16 must be
      interpreted as referring only to the right of beneficiaries of the     1.   A national court, called on to examine the legality of a
      system of mutual recognition of diplomas established by the                 procedure for the expropriation in the public interest, in
      directive to use their academic title, and if appropriate its               connection with the construction of a motorway, of immovable
      abbreviation, in the language of the Member State of origin or              property belonging to a private individual, may review whether
      the Member State from which they come. This does not affect                 the national legislature kept within the limits of the discretion
      the right of the host Member State to authorise the use in its              set by Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the
      territory of the academic title or an equivalent title in a language        assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects
      other than that of the Member State of origin or Member State               on the environment, in particular where prior assessment of the
      from which the person concerned comes.                                      environmental impact of the project has not been carried out,
                                                                                  the information gathered in accordance with Article 5 has not
                                                                                  been made available to the public and the members of the
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.                                                         public concerned have not had an opportunity to express an
                                                                                  opinion before the project is initiated, contrary to the require-
                                                                                  ments of Article 6(2) Directive 85/337.
                                                                             2.   The terms ‘specific act of national legislation’ and ‘project’ used
                                                                                  in Article 1(5) of Directive 85/337 must be given an
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                          autonomous interpretation.
                        of 19 September 2000
                                                                             3.   On a proper construction of Article 1(5) of Directive 85/337,
in Case C-287/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                         a measure adopted by a parliament after public parliamentary
the Tribunal d’Arrondissement de Luxembourg): State of                            debate constitutes a specific act of national legislation within
the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg v Berthe Linster, Aloyse                            the meaning of that provision where the legislative process has
                   Linster and Yvonne Linster (1)                                 enabled the objectives pursued by Directive 85/337, including
                                                                                  that of supplying information, to be achieved, and the infor-
                                                                                  mation available to the parliament at the time when the details
(Environment — Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of                               of the project were adopted was equivalent to that which would
the effects of certain public and private projects — Specific                     have been submitted to the competent authority in an ordinary
     act of national legislation — Effect of the directive)                       procedure for granting consent for a project.
                             (2000/C 335/11)
                      (Language of the case: French)                         (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-287/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal