CELEX: C2000/034/48
Language: en
Date: 2000-02-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-262/99: Action brought on 28 October 1999 by Anthony Goldstein against the Commission of the European Communities

5.2.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 34/25
(b) order the Commission to pay the costs.                              nomic and legal information necessary to assist the national
                                                                        court in the application of the Community competition rules.
                                                                        The applicant considers that the Commission’s reply to
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         the Court’s request was inadequate because the information
                                                                        provided by it is totally devoid of any factual and legal
                                                                        assessment of the rules applicable to specialist medical prac-
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case             titioners trained and established in the United Kingdom and
T-237/99.                                                               whether or not the legal conditions are satisfied for the
                                                                        application by the national court of the prohibitions contained
                                                                        in Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81 and
(1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
                                                                        82 EC) to the anti-competitive practices of the GMC.
                                                                        The applicant claims therefore that the Commission is guilty
                                                                        of misuse of powers in so far as it has concealed from the
                                                                        national court and from the parties to the proceedings before
                                                                        the national court the nature and extent of the factual and
Action brought on 28 October 1999 by Anthony Gold-                      legal information it may be able to supply to national court
stein against the Commission of the European Communi-                   under the principle of active and sincere cooperation pursuant
                               ties                                     to Article 5 of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC) and failed to
                                                                        take all steps necessary within its power, in breach of the
                                                                        principle of good faith, to ensure all relevant documents are
                        (Case T-262/99)                                 produced to the national court and to the parties and its
                                                                        officials are authorised to give evidence in the national
                         (2000/C 34/48)                                 proceedings. He further claims that the Commission is guilty
                                                                        of breach of the principle of protection of legitimate expec-
                                                                        tations and breach of the principle of legal certainty.
                  (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               The applicant submits that as a direct consequence of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              conduct alleged the national court was not in a position to
European Communities on 28 October 1999 by Anthony                      determine whether the conditions for the application of the
Goldstein, represented by Raymond St John Murphy, Solicitor,            prohibitions contained in Articles 85 and 86 of the EC
of Merriman White Solicitors, 61 Fleet Street, London EC4Y              Treaty were satisfied. This meant that the national court was
1JU, United Kingdom.                                                    effectively prohibited from adopting all necessary measures
                                                                        forthwith to terminate the anti-competitive conduct of the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             GMC.
— order the defendant to supply the factual and legal
    information requested by the national court under Article 5
    of the EC Treaty (now Article 10 EC);                               Finally, the applicant asserts that the Commission’s action
                                                                        caused him to sustain damage which consists of non-material
                                                                        damage for harm to his professional reputation as a specialist
— order the defendant to pay damages in the amount of
                                                                        medical practitioner recognised at Community level as a result
    EUR 100 000 to the applicant;
                                                                        of the publication to all registered medical practitioners in the
                                                                        United Kingdom of a fact sheet by the GMC containing
— order the amount of damages to bear default interest at the           information misrepresenting the legal status of specialist
    annual rate of 4,5 per cent from the date of the judgment           medical practitioners whose names appear on the Specialist
    until actual payment;                                               List, including the applicant, contrary to Directive 84/450 in
                                                                        so far as it implies that those practitioners are not specialist
— order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay those            medical practitioners and furthermore that they are engaged
    of the applicant.                                                   in the illegal pursuit of a regulated profession.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        (1) OJ 1993 C 39, p. 6.
The applicant explains that in the context of his action against
the General Medical Council (GMC), the High Court made an
order pursuant to the Notice on Co-operation between national
courts and the Commission in applying Articles 85 and 86
of the EC Treaty (1), requiring the Directorate-General for
Competition of the European Commission to provide eco-