CELEX: C1999/071/38
Language: en
Date: 1999-03-13 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour Administrative, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, by a judgment of 21 January 1999 in the case of Ministre de la Santé v Jeff Erpelding (Case C-16/99)

C 71/22               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   13.3.1999
    The appellant further observes that the Court of First           the European Communities on 25 January 1999 by the
    Instance misapplied the criteria for determining the             French Republic, represented by Kareen Rispal-Bellanger,
    causal link.                                                     Deputy Director responsible for matters of international
                                                                     economic law and Community law in the Ministry of
                                                                     Foreign Affairs, and FreÂdeÂrik Million, ChargeÂ de Mission,
                                                                     acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the French Embassy, 8b Boulevard
                                                                     Joseph II.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour
Administrative, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, by a                      The French Republic claims that the Court should:
judgment of 21 January 1999 in the case of Ministre de la
                    SanteÂ v Jeff Erpelding
                                                                     Ð annul the Commission's decision C(1998) 3515 final
                        (Case C-16/99)
                                                                         of 4 November 1998 concerning aid granted to
                        (1999/C 71/38)                                   Nouvelle Filature LainieÁre de Roubaix, inasmuch as it
                                                                         declares the aid granted to be incompatible with the
                                                                         common market;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of 21 January 1999
of the Cour Administrative, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg,               Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
which was received at the Court Registry on 25 January
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ministre de la         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
SanteÂ v Jeff Erpelding on the following questions:
May Article 19 of Directive 93/16/EEC (1) to facilitate the          Ð Breach of an essential rule governing the procedure for
free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of                   reviewing grants of State aid: the Commission adopted
their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal                the decision taken by it on the basis of the
qualifications be applied, in a State with provisions on this            information available to it', whereas the Court's
matter laid down by law, in favour of an applicant with a                case-law and the rule which the Commission imposes
qualification obtained in another Member State but not                   on itself, both in its publications (1) and in its
included in the list of specialist training courses contained            decision-making practice, required it to demand the
in Article 7 of the Directive who requests authorization,                Member State concerned, by interim decision
on the basis of the training he has acquired in the other                addressed to that State, to communicate to it the
Member State, to use an equivalent professional title in                 information necessary in order for it to reach its
the host State?                                                          decision.
If not,                                                              Ð Infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty.
Does Article 10 of Directive 93/16/EEC confer on holders             Ð Infringement of Article 92 of the EC Treaty: manifest
of academic titles acquired in another Member State                      error of assessment in declaring the aid in question to
merely the option of using their academic title or, where                be incompatible with the common market on the basis
appropriate, the abbreviation thereof, or, conversely,                   of Article 92(3)(c) of the EC Treaty:
should the text of the directive be interpreted to the effect
that only the academic title in the language of the country              Ð The Commission's arguments in support of its
in which it was awarded may be authorised, to the                            conclusion that the undertaking concerned was
exclusion of equivalent titles formulated in the language                    uncompetitive and, consequently, not viable on a
and according to the terminology of the host State?                          long-term basis, are either wholly irrelevant or
                                                                             deeply flawed. Whilst it is true that provision was
(1) OJ L 165, 7.7.1993, p. 1.                                                made in the 1996 financial year for the investment
                                                                             premium of FF 22 million, that year Ð involving
                                                                             as it did the aforesaid exceptional element Ð
                                                                             could not be used as the basis for assessing the Ð
                                                                             allegedly negative Ð trend shown by the net
                                                                             results in subsequent years, and thus for evaluating
Action brought on 25 January 1999 by the French                              the competitiveness of the undertaking. The
Republic against the Commission of the European                              discontinuance of one of its activities (fancy yarn')
                         Communities                                         in 1998 cannot justify the conclusion that there
                                                                             was a decrease in the competitiveness of all the
                        (Case C-17/99)                                       undertaking's activities, since it concerned a
                        (1999/C 71/39)                                       marginal activity and not, as the Commission
                                                                             claims, an important part of the activities of the
                                                                             new undertaking. Lastly, it was not open to the
An action against the Commission of the European                             Commission to infer from that factor that there
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                       was a lack of competitiveness, unless it is