CELEX: C2000/285/07
Language: en
Date: 2000-10-07 00:00:00
Title: Case C-295/00: Action brought on 1 August 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

7.10.2000               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 285/3
If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative:                 May a Member State continue, in particular after the adoption
                                                                            of Directive 92/51/EEC on a second general recognition
                                                                            system (1), to reserve an activity allied to medicine, such as that
2.    Are Articles 48(2) and 51 of the EC Treaty (now                       of a non-medical practitioner under the German Heilpraktiker-
      Articles 39(2) and 42 EC) and Regulation (EEC)                        gesetz (Law on non-medical practitioners, RGBl I 251/1939)
      No 1408/71 to be interpreted as precluding national                   in the version currently in force, to holders of the diploma of
      rules which, for the qualifying period for a benefit                  doctor, or is that now precluded in particular by Article 43
      stemming from the insurance contingency of reduced                    EC (formerly Article 52 of the EC Treaty) on freedom of
      capacity for work not to apply, require not only that the             establishment and Article 50 EC (formerly Article 60 of the EC
      insurance contingency is the result of an accident at work,           Treaty) on freedom to provide services?
      but also that the insurance contingency materialised in
      respect of a person insured compulsorily with a pension
      insurance institution under the (Austrian) Allgemeines                Do the said provisions of European law preclude national
      Sozialversicherungsgesetz (General Law on Social Secur-               provisions which reserve training for activities which are
      ity) (ASVG) or another (Austrian) federal law or in respect           regulated by legal provisions in the field of health to the
      of a person insured privately under Paragraph 19a of the              institutions designated for that purpose and prohibit the
      (Austrian) Allgemeines Sozialversicherungsgesetz (ASVG)               offering or procuring of such training by other persons or
      and therefore do not cover accidents at word sustained                institutions and advertising therefor, even if that training
      during employment in other Member States?                             relates only to certain branches of medical activity?
3.    Are Articles 48(2) and 51 of the EC Treaty (now
      Articles 39(2) and 42 EC) to be interpreted as contrary to
      Article 9a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and national                (1) OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 25.
      rules which preclude in general any prolongation of the
      reference period in respect of the period during which a
      pension is received or limits such prolongation to cases
      of entitlement to a pension stemming from the statutory
      accident insurance of the Member State concerned?
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 2.
(2) OJ 1983 L 230, p. 6.                                                    Action brought on 1 August 2000 by the Commission of
(3) OJ 1992 136, p. 28.                                                       the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                                      (Case C-295/00)
                                                                                                      (2000/C 285/07)
                                                                            An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 August
                                                                            2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                            represented by Enrico Traversa, Legal Adviser, and Bernard
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster                        Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address
Gerichtshof, Austria, by order of that court of 13 July                     for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
2000 in the case of Deutsche Paracelsus Schulsen für                        Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
          Naturheilverfahren GmbH v Kurt Gräbner
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          (Case C-294/00)
                                                                            (a)   declare that, by maintaining in force a tax payable by
                                                                                  passengers disembarking or embarking in the ports of
                          (2000/C 285/06)                                         Genoa, Naples and Trieste where those passengers arrive
                                                                                  from, or are travelling to, ports in another Member State
                                                                                  or a third country, whereas no such tax is levied in the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                            case of carriage between two ports located on Italian
European Communities by an order of the Oberster Gerichts-                        territory, the Italian Republic has failed to comply with
hof (Supreme Court), Austria, of 13 July 2000, which was                          its obligations under Article 1 of Council Regulation
received at the Court Registry on 31 July 2000, for a prelimi-                    (EEC) No 4055/86 (1) of 22 December 1986 applying the
nary ruling in the case of Deutsche Paracelsus Schulen für                        principle of freedom to provide services to maritime
Naturheilverfahren GmbH v Kurt Gräbner on the following                           transport between Member States and between Member
questions:                                                                        States and third countries;
 ---pagebreak--- C 285/4                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     7.10.2000
(b) order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.                              T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-600/97 to T-607/97,
                                                                              T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98;
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         2.    alternatively, set aside that judgment in so far as it
                                                                              imposes the obligation to recover the aid granted together
Article 32(d) of Italian Law No 82/1963 provides for the                      with interest thereon;
payment of a tax by passengers disembarking or embarking in
the ports of Genoa, Naples and Trieste where those passengers           3.    order the Commission of the European Communities to
arrive from, or are travelling to, places in another Member                   pay the costs in any event.
State or a third country, whereas no such tax is levied in the
case of carriage between two places located on Italian territory.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
That manifest difference between tax regimes has a substan-
tially adverse effect on the exercise by the economic operators
concerned of their freedom to provide services, and therefore           The first plea concerns the allegedly erroneous characterisation
constitutes a clear restriction on freedom to provide maritime          of the measures as ‘new’ aid and a lack of reasoning in the
transport passenger services, contrary to Article 1(1) of Regu-         judgment of the Court of First Instance. The aid granted by the
lation No 4055/86.                                                      Friuli-Venezia Giulia Region, as provided for by the Laws of
                                                                        1981 and 1985, cannot be regarded as ‘new’, despite having
                                                                        from a chronological standpoint been granted after the entry
(1) OJ L 378 of 31.12.1986, p. 1.
                                                                        into force of Regulation No 1018/68 (1) which opened up the
                                                                        activity in question to competition, since the international
                                                                        road haulage sector could not yet be regarded as having been
                                                                        fully liberalised. Moreover, that aid did not have any effect on
                                                                        intra-Community trade and was not such as to have any
                                                                        impact on competition; the judgment of the Court of First
                                                                        Instance does not contain sufficient reasoning on those points.
Appeal brought on 3 August 2000 by the Italian Republic
against the judgement delivered on 15 June 2000 by the                  The second plea concerns alleged infringement of the principle
Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of                   of the protection of legitimate expectations and of the principle
First Instance of the European Communities in Joined                    of reasonableness. The effect of the judgment of the Court of
Cases T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97, T-600/97                  First Instance requiring Italy to recover the aid granted from
to T-607/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98 between               1 July 1990 onwards for international transport operations is
Mauro Alzetta and Others, supported by the Italian                      contrary to the aforesaid principles, in particular because it
Republic, and the Commission of the European Communi-                   was not until November 1995 that the Commission com-
                                  ties                                  menced the procedure contesting that aid. In addition, the
                                                                        operation of the decision will have very grave occupational
                                                                        and social consequences.
                         (Case C-298/00 P)
                          (2000/C 285/08)                               (1) OJ L 175 of 23.7.1968, p. 13.
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 June 2000 by
the Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases
T-298/97, T-312/97, T-313/97, T-315/97 ,T-600/97 to
T-607/97, T-1/98, T-3/98 to T-6/98 and T-23/98 between
Mauro Alzetta and Others, supported by the Italian Republic,
and the Commission of the European Communities was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 3 August 2000 by the Italian Republic, represented by           Action brought on 7 August 2000 by the Commission of
Prof. Umberto Leanza, acting as Agent, assisted by Giacomo               the European Communities against the French Republic
Aiello, Avvocato dello Stato, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-Adélaïde.
                                                                                                (Case C-302/00)
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                                (2000/C 285/09)
1.    set aside in its entirety the judgment delivered on 15 June
      2000 by the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber,              An action against the French Republic was brought before the
      Extended Composition) in Joined Cases T-298/97,                   Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 August