CELEX: C1999/071/37
Language: en
Date: 1999-03-13 00:00:00
Title: Appeal brought on 18 January 1999 by TEAM Srl, established in Rome, against the judgment delivered on 29 October 1998 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-13/96 between TEAM Srl and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-13/99 P)

13.3.1999             EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 71/21
Action brought on 18 January 1999 by the Commission of            Appeal brought on 18 January 1999 by TEAM Srl,
the European Communities against the Portuguese                   established in Rome, against the judgment delivered on
                            Republic                              29 October 1998 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of
                                                                  First Instance of the European Communities in Case
                       (Case C-12/99)                             T-13/96 between TEAM Srl and the Commission of the
                                                                                     European Communities
                       (1999/C 71/36)
                                                                                        (Case C-13/99 P)
                                                                                         (1999/C 71/37)
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought             An appeal against the judgment delivered on 29 October
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities           1998 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First
on 18 January 1999 by the Commission of the European              Instance of the European Communities in Case T-13/96
Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis and              between TEAM Srl and the Commission of the European
António Caeiros, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent,           Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of        the European Communities on 18 January 1999 by TEAM
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner             Srl, represented by Antonio Tizzano and Gian Michele
Centre, Kirchberg.                                                Roberti, with an address for service at the offices of
                                                                  Studio Legale Tizzano, 36 Place du Grand Sablon, 1000
                                                                  Brussels.
                                                                  The appellant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                  Ð set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 29 October
                                                                      1998 in Case T-13/96;
1. Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
    the laws, regulations and administrative provisions           Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of the present
    necessary to comply with Council Directive                        proceedings.
    94/45/EC (1) of 22 September 1994 on the
    establishment of a European Works Council or a                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    procedure in Community-scale undertakings and
    Community-scale groups of undertakings for the                1. On 11 May 1998 the Court of First Instance adopted
    purposes of informing and consulting employees                    a measure of organisation of procedure in the form of
    within the period prescribed by Article 14(1) thereof,            a request to the Commission to produce copies of the
    the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its                  documents relating to the contested tender procedure.
    obligations under the first paragraph of Article 5 and            That measure had in fact been applied for by the
    the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty               appellant as early as 26 January 1996, when it first
    as well as under Article 14(1) of Directive 94/45/EC;             brought the action, that is to say, over two years
    and                                                               previously. In addition, the measure in question was
                                                                      adopted six months after the closure of the written
                                                                      procedure, in the context of the oral hearing. In the
                                                                      appellant's view, that manner of proceeding constitutes
                                                                      a clear violation of the rights of the defence, since the
2. Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                      delay attending the adoption of the measure was
                                                                      excessive and unjustified.
                                                                  2. The Court of First Instance refused to take into
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   consideration crucial documents submitted by the
                                                                      appellant during the course of the hearing. According
                                                                      to the appellant, the Court of First Instance distorted'
                                                                      the evidence submitted by the appellant, inasmuch as
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third                   it stated that that evidence was irrelevant' for the
paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of                   purposes of determining the dispute. Moreover, the
Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to                  Court of First Instance provided no reasons for its
adopt the measures necessary to transpose directives                  decision.
addressed to them into their domestic law before the
expiry of the period prescribed for doing so. That period         3. In seeking to ascertain and characterise the reparable
expired on 22 September 1996 without Portugal having                  damage, the Court of First Instance completely
brought into force the necessary provisions.                          distorted the nature of the damage as claimed by the
                                                                      appellant. In addition, the Court of First Instance
                                                                      manifestly failed to provide a statement of reasons,
(1) OJ L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64.                                       inasmuch as it did not furnish a clear explanation of
                                                                      its reasons for completely disregarding the legal
                                                                      presentation by the appellant of its case,
                                                                      notwithstanding that this was clearly set out and fully
                                                                      argued by the latter.
 ---pagebreak--- 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