CELEX: C1998/327/50
Language: en
Date: 1998-10-24 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 30 June 1998 by Anthony Goldstein against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-100/98)

24.10.98             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 327/27
which the Commission must observe when it adopts                     economics and part of the professional experience when
administrative measures.                                             classifying him.
                                                                     Although the directive on higher-education diplomas (1)
                                                                     does not bind the Community institutions directly, it
                                                                     would nevertheless be paradoxical if those institutions
                                                                     placed a different meaning on higher-education diploma'
Action brought on 8 June 1998 by Jürgen Wettig against
                                                                     and thereby disregarded the objectives and provisions of
       the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                     the directive.
                       (Case T-91/98)
                        (98/C 327/49)                                (1) Council Directive 89/48/EEC, (OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16).
               (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 8 June 1998 by               Action brought on 30 June 1998 by Anthony Goldstein
Jürgen Wettig, of Brussels, Belgium, represented by Peter               against the Commission of the European Communities
Wiesner, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne, Germany, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dr                                      (Case T-100/98)
Johannes Henricus Van Vliet, 49 Rue Glesener.
                                                                                              (98/C 327/50)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                     (Language of the case: English)
Ð annul the decision of the defendant of 5 November
    1997 definitively classifying him in Step 1 of Grade
    A 5 from 1 October 1996;                                         An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 30 June 1998
Ð order the defendant to classify him in Step 2 of his               by Anthony Goldstein, represented by Raymond St John
    current grade retroactively from 1 October 1996;                 Murphy, Merriman White, 3, King's Bench Walk, Inner
                                                                     Temple, London EC4Y 7DJ, United Kingdom.
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     Ð declare the Commission in breach of Council Directive
The applicant, a graduate of the Fachhochschule für                       84/450/EEC (1) to the extent that the Citizens First
Finanzen (higher education establishment specialising in                  Factsheet on the Recognition of Diplomas and
finance) of the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia, has been                  Qualifications of General and Specialist Doctors in the
working as a member of the Commission's temporary staff                   United Kingdom misrepresents the rules applicable to
(in Directorate E of Directorate General XI) since                        specialist medical practitioners in the United Kingdom
1 October 1996. In accordance with clause 3 of his                        in order to promote the supply of specialist medical
contract of employment, he was classified in Step 1 of                    services by a category of medical practitioners who are
Grade A 5.                                                                not qualified by law to practise the regulated medical
                                                                          profession as licensed specialist medical practitioners
                                                                          and who have not completed the prescribed specialist
The applicant contends that when he took up his duties he                 medical training at Community level and national
already had more than 16 years' professional experience                   level and thereby do not offer the minimum safeguards
which was to be taken into account. Nevertheless, in                      required by Community law for practising a medical
breach of his right to be classified in the appropriate (or               specialty regulated by Community law as a specialist
definitive') step, the initial classification was retained,              medical practitioner;
although that is inconsistent with the Commission's
current administrative practice.
                                                                     Ð declare the Commission in breach of Council Directive
By recruiting the applicant in Grade A 5, the appointing                  84/450/EEC to the extent that the Citizens First
authority had implicitly recognised his diploma in                        Factsheet on the Recognition of Diplomas and
 ---pagebreak--- C 327/28              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.10.98
     Qualifications of General and Specialist Doctors in the         nature and effects of the rules applicable to specialist
     United Kingdom misrepresents the rules applicable to            medical practitioners in the United Kingdom from the
     specialist medical practitioners in the United Kingdom          persons subject to their jurisdiction in order to deprive
     in order not to promote the supply of specialist                them of their substance and thereby to sanction the illegal
     medical services by a category of medical practitioners         transfer of the status of Community Medical Specialist'
     who are qualified by law to practise the regulated              from one category of medical practitioners Ð those who
     medical profession as licensed specialist medical               are qualified by law to practise the regulated medical
     practitioners and who have completed the prescribed             profession as licensed specialist medical practitioners
     specialist medical training at Community level and              recognised at Community level Ð to another category of
     national level and thereby offer the minimum                    medical practitioners Ð those who are not qualified by
     safeguards required by community law for practising a           law to practise the regulated medical profession as
     medical specialty regulated by Community law as a               licensed specialist medical practitioners recognised at
     specialist medical practitioner;                                Community level.
                                                                     (1) OJ L 250, 19.9.1984, p. 17.
Ð order the defendant to pay compensation to be                      (2) Case T-235/95, OJ C 64, 2.3.1996, p. 19.
     determined by the Court ex aequo et bono or by an                   Case T-262/97, OJ C 370, 6.12.1997, p. 8.
     expert together with default interest at a rate to be               Case T-286/97, OJ C 7, 10.1.1998, p. 25.
                                                                     (3) Case C-148/96 P(R), (1996) ECR I-3883.
     fixed by the Court for the non-material damage
                                                                         Case C-78/97 P(R), (not published).
     suffered by the applicant, a specialist medical                     Case C-199/98 P(R), pending.
     practitioner in rheumatology recognised at Community
     level, and listed on the Specialist List, in so far as the
     defendant misrepresent the legal status of the category
     of medical practitioners legally entitled to practise as
     specialist medical practitioners recognised at
     Community level in the Citizens First Factsheet on the
     Recognition of Diplomas and Qualifications of
     General and Specialist Doctors in the United Kingdom            Action brought on 14 July 1998 by SocietaÁ Camar s.r.l.
     thereby tarnishing their professional reputation; and           and SocietaÁ Tico s.r.l. against Commission of the
                                                                                        European Communities
                                                                                             (Case T-117/98)
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                              (98/C 327/51)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                  (Language of the case: Italian)
The applicant is a medical practitioner of British                   An action against the Commission of the European
nationality residing in the United Kingdom, who has                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
already brought several cases to the Court of First                  Instance of the European Communities on 14 July 1998
Instance of the European Communities (2) and the Court               by SocietaÁ Camar s.r.l. and SocietaÁ Tico s.r.l., represented
of Justice of the European Communities (3). He now                   by Wilma Viscardini DonaÁ, assisted by Mariano Paolin
claims having suffered damage caused by the                          and Simonetta DonaÁ, of the Padua Bar, with an address
Commission's failure to exercise the supervisory powers of           for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernst
surveillance and control conferred on it by the EC Treaty            Arendt, Rue Mathias Hardt.
in accordance with the prescribed legal framework to
adopt the measures necessary under Article 162 of the EC
Treaty to ensure that both it and its departments operate            The applicants claim that the Court should:
in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty to
guarantee the information contained in the Citizens First
Factsheet on the Recognition of Diplomas and                         Ð annul, pursuant to Articles 173 and 174 of the EC
Qualifications of General and Specialist Doctors in the                   Treaty, the Commission decision Ð communicated by
United Kingdom is in conformity with Council Directive                    a letter from Franz Fischler, a Member of the
84/450/EEC of 10 September 1984 and thereby protect                       Commission, dated 23/24 April 1998 and received
the legitimate interests of the applicant.                                on 14 May 1998 Ð rejecting an application for
                                                                          adaptation of the tariff quota for imports of bananas,
                                                                          pursuant to Article 16(3) of Commission Regulation
The applicant submits that his damage derives from the                    (EEC) No 1442/93 (1);
illegal publication in breach of this Directive by the
Commission, of false information contained in the
Citizens First Factsheet on the Recognition of Diplomas              Ð order the Commission, pursuant to Article 178 and
and Qualifications of General and Specialist Doctors in                   the second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty,
the United Kingdom which conceals the Community                           to pay compensation for damage;