CELEX: C2001/173/05
Language: en
Date: 2001-06-16 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 1 February 2001 in Case C-66/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Bremen (Germany)): D. Wandel GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bremen (Community Customs Code and implementing regulation — Incurrence of a customs debt on importation — Relevant time — Concept of removal from customs supervision of goods liable to import duty — Production of certificates of origin — Effect)

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:
 ---pagebreak--- C 173/4                   EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          16.6.2001
1.    Where an examination of goods has been ordered by the                 of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet,
      customs authority for the purposes of verifying a declaration         D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges;
      which has been accepted and it has proved impossible to carry         J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
      out the examination because the goods have been removed from          judgment on 1 February 2001, in which it:
      the place of temporary storage without the authorisation of the
      relevant customs authority, the customs debt on importation is        1.    Declares that, since the public management and construction
      incurred under Article 203(1) of Council Regulation (EEC)                   entities of Val-de-Marne and Paris and the low-rent housing
      No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community                    corporation Logirel did not publish contract notices in the
      Customs Code.                                                               Official Journal of the European Communities concerning
                                                                                  the public contracts announced by notices in the Bulletin
2.    It is possible for a customs debt on importation to be incurred             Officiel des Annonces des Marchés Publics of 7 and
      under Article 203(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 where                         16 February 1995 and the Moniteur des Travaux Publics et
      the customs declaration received by the customs office was                  du Bâtiment of 17 February 1995, the French Republic
      accompanied by technically correct certificates of origin corre-            has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive
      sponding to Form A and where the zero preferential tariff                   93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the coordination of
      applied to the goods covered by the declaration.                            procedures for the award of public works contracts, in particular
                                                                                  Article 11(2) thereof;
(1) OJ C 136 of 15.5.1999.                                                  2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs;
                                                                            3.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                                  Ireland to bear its own costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                          of 1 February 2001                                                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-237/99: Commission of the European Communi-                                                  (Fifth Chamber)
ties v French Republic, supported by United Kingdom of
             Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1)                                                  of 1 February 2001
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive                in Case C-333/99: Commission of the European Communi-
93/37/EEC — Public works contracts — Concept of ‘con-                                             ties v French Republic (1)
                          tracting authority’)
                                                                            (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Com-
                            (2001/C 173/06)                                 munity system for the conservation and management of
                                                                            fishery resources — Control of fishing and related activities
                                                                            — Inspection of fishing vessels and monitoring of landings
                      (Language of the case: French)                        (Article 5 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 and
                                                                            Article 1(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87) — Temporary
                                                                            prohibition of fishing activities (Article 11(2) of Regulation
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      No 2241/87) — Penal or administrative action against
                     in the European Court Reports)                         those responsible for infringing the Community rules on
                                                                            conservation and monitoring (Article 5(2) of Regulation
In Case C-237/99: Commission of the European Communities                       No 170/83 and Article 1(2) of Regulation No 2241/87))
(Agent: M. Nolin) v French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-
Bellanger, F. Million and S. Pailler) supported by United                                              (2001/C 173/07)
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent:
R.V. Magrill) — application for a declaration that, in the
context of various procedures, for the award of public                                           (Language of the case: French)
contracts for the construction of housing organised by public
development and construction entities and by low-rent hous-
ing corporations, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
obligations under Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June                                        in the European Court Reports)
1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the award
of public works contracts (OJ 1993 L 199, p. 54), in particular             In Case C-333/99: Commission of the European Communities
Article 11(2) thereof — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed                 (Agents: T. van Rijn and B. Mongin) v French Republic