CELEX: C1998/278/39
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-250/98)

C 278/22              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  5.9.98
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arrondissements-         Ð annul the Commission appointing authority's decision
rechtbank te Arnhem by order of that court of 2 April                  of 22 July 1996 expressly rejecting the appellant's
1998 in the criminal proceedings against M. G. Berendse-               complaint concerning his requests for application of
         Koenen and H. D. Berendse, a partnership                      the weightings for Zaire,
                       (Case C-246/98)
                        (98/C 278/37)
                                                                   Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of both
                                                                       proceedings,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
the European Communities by order of the
Arrondissementsrechtbank te Arnhem (District Court,                the above being without prejudice to all other rights,
Arnhem) of 2 April 1998, received at the Court Registry            entitlements, pleas in law and remedies relied on by the
on 9 July 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case               appellant.
of M. G. Berendse-Koenen and H. D. Berendse, a
partnership, on the following questions:
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
1. Does the Verordening Stoffen met sympathico
    mimetische werking (PVV) 1991 and, more
    particularly, Articles 2 and 3 thereof, contain technical
    regulations which, pursuant to Article 8 of Council            Ð Manifest contradiction        in the grounds   for  the
    Directive 83/189/EEC (1), as it stood at the time when             judgment,
    the Verordening came into force, should have been
    notified to the Commission beforehand?
                                                                   Ð Fundamental error Ð miscalculation: according to an
2. Does the Verordening Stoffen met sympathico                         analysis of the documents used by the Court of First
    mimetische werking (PVV) 1991 and, more                            Instance, the fact that the appellant's remuneration
    particularly, Articles 2 and 3 thereof, contain                    was paid in Belgian francs during the period between
    provisions which constitute obstacles to freedom of                June 1994 and July 1996 reduced his purchasing
    trade for the purposes of Article 30 of the EC Treaty?             power by 4,1 %, contrary to the legal finding in the
                                                                       judgment under appeal to the effect that it had
(1) OJ L 109, 26.4.1983, p. 8.                                         increased by 9 %,
                                                                   Ð Manifestly erroneous reasoning: even supposing that
                                                                       prices were parallel and purchasing power became
                                                                       stable in Kinshasa and Brussels/Luxembourg as from
Appeal brought on 10 July 1998 by Mario Costacurta                     June 1994 (quod non), that would not mean that
against the judgment delivered on 26 May 1998 by                       prices and purchasing power were equal; and in no
the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                    way would it mean that this was also true of the
the European Communities in Case T-177/96 between                      period between March 1993 and May 1994.
Mario Costacurta and Commission of the European
                         Communities
                                                                   (1) OJ C 209, 4.7.1998, p. 38.
                      (Case C-249/98 P)
                        (98/C 278/38)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 May
1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities in Case T-177/96 between
Mario Costacurta and the Commission of the European                Action brought on 10 July 1998 by the Commission of the
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                 European Communities against the French Republic
the European Communities on 10 July 1998 by Mario                                         (Case C-250/98)
Costacurta, represented by Albert Rodesch, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at 7Ð11 Route d'Esch.                                    (98/C 278/39)
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   An action against the French Republic was brought before
Ð declare the appeal admissible,                                   the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                   on 10 July 1998 by the Commission of the European
Ð hold the appeal to be well founded,                              Communities, represented by Antonio Caeiro, Legal
                                                                   Adviser, and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting
Ð set aside the judgment delivered on 26 May 1998 by               as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
    the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) in Case            the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
    T-177/96 Costacurta v. Commission (1),                         Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- 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.