CELEX: C2001/173/04
Language: en
Date: 2001-06-16 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 1 February 2001 in Case C-108/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles): Dennis Mac Quen, Derek Pouton, Carla Godts, Youssef Antoun and Grandvision Belgium SA, formerly Vision Express Belgium SA, being civilly liable; intervener: Union Professionnelle Belge des Médecins Spécialistes en Ophtalmologie et Chirurgie Oculaire, civil plaintiff (Interpretation of Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC) and of Articles 30, 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC) — National legislation prohibiting opticians from carrying out certain optical examinations — National legislation restricting the marketing of equipment for carrying out certain optical examinations which are reserved exclusively for ophthalmologists)

16.6.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 173/3
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;                        As Community law stands at present, Article 52 of the EC Treaty
                                                                           (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) does not preclude the
3.    Orders the French Republic, the Portuguese Republic, the             competent authorities of a Member State from interpreting the
      Republic of Finland and the Commission of the European               national law governing the practice of medicine in such a way that,
      Communities to bear their own costs.                                 within the context of the correction of purely optical defects, the
                                                                           objective examination of a client’s eyesight, that is to say, an
                                                                           examination which does not use a method under which the client
(1) OJ C 113 of 11.4.1998.
                                                                           alone determines the optical defects from which he is suffering, is
                                                                           reserved, for reasons relating to the protection of public health, to a
                                                                           category of professionals holding specific qualifications, such as
                                                                           ophthalmologists, to the exclusion, in particular, of opticians who are
                                                                           not qualified medical doctors. It is for the national court to assess, in
                                                                           the light of the Treaty requirements relating to freedom of establish-
                                                                           ment and the demands of legal certainty and the protection of public
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     health, whether the interpretation of domestic law adopted by the
                                                                           competent national authorities in that regard remains a valid basis
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                  for the prosecutions brought in the case in the main proceedings.
                        of 1 February 2001                                 (1) OJ C 158 of 1.6.1996.
in Case C-108/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Tribunal de Première Instance de Bruxelles): Dennis
Mac Quen, Derek Pouton, Carla Godts, Youssef Antoun
and Grandvision Belgium SA, formerly Vision Express
Belgium SA, being civilly liable; intervener: Union Pro-
fessionnelle Belge des Médecins Spécialistes en Ophtalmo-                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
         logie et Chirurgie Oculaire, civil plaintiff (1)
                                                                                                     (Sixth Chamber)
(Interpretation of Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10
EC) and of Articles 30, 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now,                                            of 1 February 2001
after amendment, Articles 28 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC) —
National legislation prohibiting opticians from carrying                   in Case C-66/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
out certain optical examinations — National legislation                    the Finanzgericht Bremen (Germany)): D. Wandel GmbH
restricting the marketing of equipment for carrying out                                       v Hauptzollamt Bremen (1)
certain optical examinations which are reserved exclusively
                       for ophthalmologists)                               (Community Customs Code and implementing regulation —
                                                                           Incurrence of a customs debt on importation — Relevant
                          (2001/C 173/04)                                  time — Concept of removal from customs supervision of
                                                                           goods liable to import duty — Production of certificates of
                                                                                                      origin — Effect)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                                      (2001/C 173/05)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                             (Language of the case: German)
In Case C-108/96: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tribunal de                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Première Instance de Bruxelles (Court of First Instance, Brus-                                 in the European Court Reports)
sels) for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings
pending before that court against Dennis Mac Quen, Derek                   In Case C-66/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
Pouton, Carla Godts, Youssef Antoun and Grandvision                        the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Finanzgericht
Belgium SA, formerly Vision Express Belgium SA, being civilly              (Finance Court), Bremen, (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in
liable; intervener: Union Professionnelle Belge des Médecins               the proceedings pending before that court between D. Wandel
Spécialistes en Ophtalmologie et Chirurgie Oculaire, civil                 GmbH and Hauptzollamt Bremen — on the interpretation of
plaintiff — on the interpretation of Article 5 of the EC Treaty            Article 75, Article 201(1)(a) and (2), Article 203(1) and
(now Article 10 EC) and of Articles 30, 52 and 59 of the EC                Article 204(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of
Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC, 43 EC and 49                 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code
EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet,                 (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed
President of the First Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth           of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skouris,
Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and P. Jann, Judges;                   J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and F. Macken,
J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,            Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
has given a judgment on 1 February 2001, in which it has                   Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
ruled:                                                                     1 February 2001, in which it has ruled: