Annalisa Carbonari and Others v Università degli studi di Bologna, Ministero della Sanità, Ministero dell'Università e della Ricerca Scientifica and Ministero del Tesoro.
Date: 1999-02-25
27 In that respect, it is sufficient to point out that the Court of Justice has already held in Commission v Spain, cited above, 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, applies only to medical specialties which are common to all the Member States or to two or more Member States and are mentioned in Article 5 or Article 7 of the `recognition' directive.
28 Since those provisions list, for the specialist training courses concerned, both the designations in force in the Member States and the competent authorities or bodies, it is for the national court to determine, amongst the applicants in the main proceedings, which belong to the category of doctors on one of those specialist training courses who, under the `coordination' directive, as amended by Directive 82/76, enjoy the right to appropriate remuneration during their training period.
33 It should be noted that point 1 of the Annex to the `coordination' directive, as amended by Directive 82/76, is explicit and unconditional in requiring participation in all the medical activities of the department where the training is carried out, including on-call duties, so that the trainee specialist devotes to this practical and theoretical training all his professional activity throughout the duration of the standard working week and throughout the year.
34 Although the same provision requires that the rules be determined by the competent authorities, the requirements of full-time training listed under that point are sufficiently precise to enable the national court to determine which of the applicants in the main proceedings belonging to the category of trainee specialists fulfilled the requirements of full-time training in specialised medicine in accordance with the `coordination' directive and Directive 82/76 prior to the academic year 1991/92.
40 As regards the respect for the minimum criteria for training, it should be observed that the Community legislature, by insisting both on the minimum training period and on the fact that the training should be full-time, considered that the level of training in specialised medicine should not be compromised by, in particular, the parallel pursuit, in a private capacity, of a paid professional activity. That is why Directive 82/76 establishes the obligation to provide remuneration for periods of training in medical specialties.
41 That obligation is thus entirely linked to fulfilling the requirements for training in specialised medicine which themselves enable the Member States to undertake the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in specialised medicine in accordance with the `recognition' directive.
42 It is therefore clear from the system of the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in specialised medicine that the Member State in which the training in specialised medicine is undertaken must guarantee that that training fulfils all the requirements laid down in the `coordination' directive and Directive 82/76 and that the trainee specialists receive remuneration.
44 It is in that context that Article 2(1)(c) of the `coordination' directive and point 1 of the Annex thereto, as amended by Directive 82/76, impose 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 fall within the scope of the directive. That obligation is, in itself, unconditional and sufficiently precise.
45 However, it is common ground that the `coordination' directive and Directive 82/76 do not contain any Community definition either of the remuneration which is to be regarded as appropriate or of the methods by which that remuneration is to be fixed. Such definitions are in principle a matter for the Member States, which must adopt specific implementing measures in the field.
47 In those circumstances, Article 2(1)(c) of the `coordination' directive and point 1 of the Annex thereto, as amended by Directive 82/76, are not, in that respect, unconditional; they do not enable the national court to determine the body liable to pay the appropriate remuneration or the level thereof.
48 However, it should be recalled that, in accordance with case-law which has been settled since Case 14/83 Von Colson and Kamann v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen [1984] ECR 1891, paragraph 26, the Member States' obligation arising from a directive to achieve the result envisaged by the directive and their duty under Article 5 of the Treaty to take all appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to ensure the fulfilment of that obligation, is binding on all the authorities of Member States including, for matters within their jurisdiction, the courts. As is clear from the settled case-law of the Court of Justice, in applying national law and in particular the provisions of a law which, as in the main proceedings, were specifically introduced in order to implement a directive, the national court is required to interpret its national law, as far as possible, in the light of the wording and the purpose of the directive in order to achieve the result pursued by the latter and thereby to comply with the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty (see Case C-106/89 Marleasing v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentación [1990] ECR I-4135, paragraph 8, and Case C-334/92 Wagner Miret v Fondo de Garantía Salarial [1993] ECR I-6911, paragraph 20).
49 In those circumstances, it is 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, can 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.
50 In the case at issue in the main proceedings, it is therefore for the national court, in the context of the foregoing considerations, to decide whether the level of appropriate remuneration and the institution on which is imposed the obligation to pay that remuneration may be determined on the basis of all provisions of national law.
52 In the absence of a question submitted for a preliminary ruling on that point, it is sufficient to recall that the Court of Justice has repeatedly held that, if the result prescribed by a directive cannot be achieved by way of interpretation, Community law requires the Member States to make good damage caused to individuals through failure to transpose a directive, provided that three conditions are fulfilled: the rule of law infringed was intended to confer rights on individuals and the content of those rights can be identified; the breach is sufficiently serious; and there is a direct causal link between the breach of the State's obligation and the damage suffered by the persons affected (see, inter alia, Case C-91/92 Faccini Dori v Recreb [1994] ECR I-3325, paragraph 27, and Joined Cases C-178/94, C-179/94, C-188/94, C-189/94 and C-190/94 Dillenkofer and Others v Federal Republic of Germany [1996] ECR I-4845, paragraphs 21 and 23).
53 In that context, the Court of Justice held in Joined Cases C-94/95 and C-95/95 Bonifaci and Others v INPS [1997] ECR I-3969 that retroactive application in full of the measures implementing a directive enables the harmful consequences of its belated transposition to be remedied, provided that the directive has been properly transposed. However, it is for the national court to ensure that reparation of the loss or damage sustained by the beneficiaries is adequate. Retroactive and proper application in full of the measures implementing the directive will suffice for that purpose unless the beneficiaries establish the existence of complementary loss sustained on account of the fact that they were unable to benefit at the appropriate time from the financial advantages guaranteed by the directive with the result that such loss must also be made good.
54 In those circumstances, the answer to the question referred must be that Article 2(1)(c) of the `coordination' directive and point 1 of the Annex thereto, as amended by Directive 82/76, must be interpreted as follows:
- the obligation to provide appropriate remuneration for periods of 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 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 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.