Cinzia Gozza and Others v Università degli Studi di Padova and Others.
Date: 2000-10-03
26 The Court has already held, in Case C-277/93 Commission v Spain [1994] ECR I-5515, at paragraph 20, that the requirement to provide remuneration for the periods of training in specialised medicine laid down in Article 2(1)(c) of the coordination directive, as amended by Directive 82/76, applies only to medical specialties which are common to all the Member States or to two or more of them and are mentioned in Article 5 or Article 7 of the recognition directive.
30 It is not for the Court of Justice, given the allocation of functions between itself and the national courts, to determine whether the decision to refer has been taken in accordance with the rules of national law governing the organisation of courts and their procedure (see Joined Cases C-332/92, C-333/92 and C-335/92 Eurico Italia and Others v Ente Nazional Risi [1994] ECR I-711, paragraph 13, and Case C-435/97 WWF and Others v Autonome Provinz Bozen and Others [1999] ECR I-5613, paragraph 33).
33 In Case C-131/97 Carbonari and Others v Università degli Studi di Bologna and Others [1999] ECR I-1103, the Court gave a ruling on the interpretation of Article 2(1)(c) of the coordination directive and point 1 of the annex to that directive, as amended by Directive 82/76, which require appropriate remuneration for full-time training, and it has therefore provided national courts with all the criteria necessary for deciding that type of case.
34 First, the Court found that Article 2(1)(c) of the coordination directive and point 1 of the annex to that directive, as amended by Directive 82/76, imposed an obligation on Member States, in respect of doctors liable to benefit from the system of mutual recognition, to provide remuneration for periods of training in medical specialties in so far as they fell within the scope of the directive. That obligation was, in itself, unconditional and sufficiently precise (Carbonari, paragraph 44).
35 Second, the Court stated that, in order to determine whether that entitlement was to be accorded to trainee doctors, it was for the referring court to ascertain whether they belonged to the category of doctors on one of the specialist training courses specified in Article 5 or Article 7 of the recognition directive (Carbonari, paragraphs 27 and 28) and whether that training was carried out in accordance with the requirements of the coordination directive, as amended by Directive 82/76 (Carbonari, paragraphs 33 and 34).
36 Third, the Court held that Article 2(1)(c) of the coordination directive and point 1 of the annex to that directive, as amended by Directive 82/76, were not unconditional in so far as they contained no indication as to which institution bore the obligation to pay the appropriate remuneration, what was to be understood as corresponding to appropriate remuneration or the method by which that remuneration was to be fixed (Carbonari, paragraph 47).
37 Fourth, the Court stated, however, that it was for the national court to determine to what extent all provisions of national law, and more specifically, for the period after their entry into force, the provisions of a law adopted in order to implement Directive 82/76, could be interpreted after the date of entry into force of those provisions in the light of the wording and the purpose of that directive in order to achieve the result pursued by it (Carbonari, paragraph 49).
38 Finally, the Court pointed out that, if the result prescribed by the coordination directive, as amended by Directive 82/76, could not be achieved by interpreting national law in conformity with the directive, Community law required the Italian Republic to make good damage caused by it to individuals, provided that three conditions were fulfilled: the rule of law infringed was intended to confer rights on individuals and the content of those rights could be identified; the breach was sufficiently serious; and there was a direct causal link between the breach of the State's obligation and the damage suffered by the persons affected (Carbonari, paragraph 52).
39 In that connection, retroactive application in full of the measures implementing Directive 82/76 would enable the harmful consequences of its belated transposition to be remedied, provided that the directive was properly transposed. However, it was for the national court to ensure that reparation of the loss or damage sustained by the beneficiaries was adequate. Retroactive and proper application in full of the measures implementing Directive 82/76 would suffice for that purpose unless the beneficiaries established the existence of complementary loss sustained on account of the fact that they had been unable to benefit at the appropriate time from the financial advantages guaranteed by that directive with the result that such loss also had to be made good (Carbonari, paragraph 53).
41 The analysis, regarding full-time training, contained in the judgment in Carbonari and reviewed in paragraphs 33 to 39 of this judgment is entirely applicable to part-time training in specialised medicine.
43 That remuneration, granted in return for, and in recognition of, the work carried out, is intended for trainee medical specialists who participate in all the medical activities of the department where the training is carried out. They devote to that practical and theoretical training all their professional activity throughout the working week or, in the case of a part-time trainee specialist, a significant proportion of the working week.
45 In those circumstances, the answer to the first question must be that, on a proper construction of Article 2(1)(c) of the coordination directive and point 1 of the annex to that directive, as amended by Directive 82/76, and of Article 3(2) of the coordination directive and point 2 of the annex to that directive, as amended by Directive 82/76:
- the obligation to provide appropriate remuneration for periods of both full-time and part-time training in specialised medicine is binding only in respect of the medical specialties which are common to all the Member States or to two or more of them and are mentioned in Article 5 or Article 7 of the recognition directive;
- that obligation is binding only if the conditions for full-time training set out in point 1 of the annex to the coordination directive, as amended by Directive 82/76, or those for part-time training, set out in point 2 of the annex to the coordination directive, as amended by Directive 82/76, are complied with by the trainee medical specialists;
- that obligation is unconditional and sufficiently precise in so far as it requires, for a medical specialist to be able to benefit from the system of mutual recognition established by the recognition directive, that his training be full-time or part-time and remunerated;
- that obligation in itself does not, however, enable the national court to determine which body is liable to pay the appropriate remuneration or the level thereof.
The national court is required, however, when it applies provisions of national law adopted either before or after a directive, to interpret them as far as possible in the light of the wording and the purpose of that directive.