CELEX: C2000/034/33
Language: en
Date: 2000-02-05 00:00:00
Title: Case C-452/99: Action brought on 30 November 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

5.2.2000              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 34/17
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsge-                     — by failing to take into account the professional experi-
richt Wien by order of that court of 10 November 1999                          ence of divers who brought requests for equivalence
in the case of Cura Anlagen Gesellschaft m.b.H. v ASL                          before the French authorities,
                 Auto Service Leasing GmbH
                        (Case C-451/99)                                    the French Republic has failed to apply correctly
                                                                           Articles 39, 43 and 49 EC (formerly Articles 48, 52
                                                                           and 59 of the EC Treaty) and Article 8 of Directive
                         (2000/C 34/32)                                    92/51/EEC (1);
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Handelsgericht                2. Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Wien (Commercial Court, Vienna) of 10 November 1999,
which was received at the Court Registry on 26 November
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Cura Anlagen
Gesellschaft m.b.H. v ASL Auto Service Leasing GmbH on the
following question:                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments
Is Article 49 et seq. EC (or alternatively Article 28 EC) to be
interpreted as precluding the application of provisions of            The hyperbaric fitness certificate provided for by the French
Member State A which prohibit an undertaking established in           Decree of 28 March 1990 is an attestation of competence
Member State A from using for more than three days, or for            within the meaning of Article 8 of Directive 92/51/EEC.
more than a year as the case may be, in Member State A a
motor vehicle which is leased from a leasing undertaking
established in Member State B and registered in Member
State B in the name of the leasing undertaking established            To comply with Article 8 of Directive 92/51/EEC, the com-
there, without obtaining a (second) registration for that motor       petent authorities of the host Member State, when ascertaining
vehicle in Member State A?                                            whether the conditions in indents (a) or (b) of that article are
                                                                      satisfied, may not ignore the knowledge and qualifications
                                                                      already acquired by the person concerned in another Member
                                                                      State and must examine the qualifications acquired in that
                                                                      Member State. However, as the French rules now stand,
                                                                      certificates obtained in the other Member States are refused
                                                                      recognition if they are not on the list in Annex III to the Decree
                                                                      of 28 January 1991, and the French authorities do not
Action brought on 30 November 1999 by the Com-                        examine on a case-by-case basis whether the training and the
mission of the European Communities against the French                qualifications obtained correspond to the French requirements.
                            Republic
                        (Case C-452/99)                               Article 8 of Directive 92/51/EEC must be interpreted in the
                                                                      light of the case-law of the Court of Justice relating to
                         (2000/C 34/33)                               Articles 39, 43 and 49 EC (formerly Articles 48, 52 and 59 of
                                                                      the EC Treaty), and in particular in the light of the Vlassopou-
An action against the French Republic was brought before the          lou (2) judgment concerning the mutual recognition of dip-
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 Novem-             lomas. That case-law has been extended to professional
ber 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,               activities which, as regards the conditions for taking them up
represented by Christina Tufvesson, Legal Adviser, and Bernard        or pursuing them, are not subject by virtue of legal provision
Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address       to the possession of a diploma in the strict sense (3). Conse-
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la        quently, the Commission considers that even if recognition
Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                 concerns not a diploma but an attestation of competence, the
                                                                      principle of legal certainty requires the national legal system
                                                                      to provide for a procedure ensuring that the person concerned
The Commission claims that the Court should:                          has an opportunity to discover the necessary compensating
                                                                      measures and have the benefit of a reasoned decision against
1. Declare that,                                                      which a remedy is available.
    — by failing to introduce a procedure for comparing the
        knowledge and qualifications attested by diplomas of
        divers obtained in another Member State and not               According to Vlassopoulou, if the comparison discloses that
        recognised as equivalent in France with those required        the knowledge and qualifications certified by the foreign
        by French legislation, and in any event by failing to         diploma correspond only partially to those required by the
        carry out that comparison in the case of divers holding       national provisions, the host Member State is entitled to
        Belgian qualifications who have come to work in               require the person concerned to show that he has acquired the
        France, and                                                   missing knowledge and qualifications. In this regard, the
 ---pagebreak--- C 34/18                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.2.2000
competent national authorities must assess whether the know-                — in failing to put in place appropriate detailed rules for
ledge acquired in the host Member State, either during a course                  the utilisation of the quota allocated to it,
of study or by way of practical experience, is sufficient in order
to prove possession of the knowledge which is lacking. The
same reasoning must surely apply to knowledge acquired in                   — in not carrying out inspections and other controls as
the Member State of origin.                                                      required by the relevant Community Regulations,
                                                                            — in failing to provisionally close fisheries when the
A company which carries out works on the territory of a
                                                                                 quota was exhausted, and
Member State other than that in which it is established
provides services there. The refusal of the French authorities to
examine whether the qualifications of its employees are                     — in failing, (in 1988 only), to take sufficient measures to
equivalent to those required by French legislation and to                        prevent the mis-reporting of landings of mackerel
indicate the appropriate compensatory measures constitutes
an obstacle to the freedom to provide services, since it prevents
undertakings established in a Member State other than France                — in failing to take administrative or penal action against
from providing their services with the aid of their own                          the masters of ships infringing the Regulations, or
employees. The host Member State is obliged to ascertain that                    against such other person as was responsible for such
the conditions it lays down for the exercise of the profession                   infringement,
do not needlessly duplicate the equivalent legal conditions
already satisfied in the Member State of establishment.
                                                                            the United Kingdom has failed to carry out the obligations
                                                                            imposed on it by i) article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                            No. 170/83(1) and of article 1(1) of Regulation (EEC)
(1) Council Directive of 18 June 1992 on a second general system            No. 2057/82 (2) (with respect to the period to 1 August
    for the recognition of professional education and training to           1987) and article 1(1) of Regulation (EEC) No. 2241/87 (3)
    supplement Directive 89/48/EEC, OJ 1992 L 209, p. 25.                   (in respect of the period thereafter); ii) of article 10(2)
(2) Case C-340/89, [1991] ECR I-2357.                                       of Regulation (EEC) No. 2057/82 and article 11(2) of
(3) See Case C-164/94 Aranitis v Land Berlin [1996] ECR I-135,              Regulation (EEC) No. 2241/87; iii) of article 9 of Regu-
    paragraph 32.                                                           lation (EEC) No. 2241/87; (iv) article 1(2) of Regulation
                                                                            (EEC) 2057/82 or article 1(2) of Regulation (EEC) 2057/82
                                                                            or article 1(2) of Regulation 2241/87 in combination with
                                                                            article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) No. 170/83;
                                                                        2) order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.
Action brought on 30 November 1999 by the Com-                          Pleas in law and main arguments
mission of the European Communities against the United
      Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
                                                                        — The United Kingdom did not put in place appropriate
                                                                            detailed rules for the proper utilisation of the quotas
                         (Case C-454/99)                                    allocated to it, contrary to Article 5 (2) of Regulation
                                                                            170/83.
                          (2000/C 34/34)
                                                                        — The United Kingdom has not ensured compliance with
An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                   Community rules on conservation, contrary to Article 1 of
Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of                 Regulations 2057/82 (as regards 1985 to 1 August 1987)
the European Communities on 30 November 1999 by the                         and 2241/87 (from 1 August 1987). These Regulations
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                      imposed more specific obligations on Member States than
Mr Thomas van Rijn, Legal Adviser, and Mr Keir Fitch, an                    Regulation 170/83, intended in each case to ensure
official seconded to the Commission’s Legal Service under the               compliance with the regulations in force concerning
arrangement for the exchange of national officials, acting as               conservations and control measures.
agents, with an address for service at the office of Mr Carlos
Gómez de la Cruz, Member of the Legal Service of the                   — The United Kingdom, by failing to record landings of
Commission, Centre Wagner C-254, Luxembourg, pursuant
                                                                            stocks subject to TACs or Quota (1988 only), has infringed
to Article 226 EC.                                                          Article 9 of Regulation 2241/87.
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                             — The United Kingdom did not respect its obligation under
                                                                            Article 10 of Regulation 2057/82 or Article 11 of Regu-
1) declare that in respect of each of the years 1985 to 1988                lation 2241/87 to prohibit fishery provisionally when the
     and 1990                                                               quota allocated to it was deemed to have been exhausted.