You are on page 1of 1


98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 234/19

Raymond St John Murphy, Solicitor, of Merriman White, on 28 May 1998 by the Commission of the European
solicitors, 3 King's Bench Walk, Inner Temple, London Communities, represented by Maria Patakia, of its Legal
EC4Y 7DJ. Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
The appellant claims that the Court should: Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.

Ð set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of
16 March 1998 in Case T-235/95 Goldstein v.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
Commission (not published in the European Court
Reports) in which the Court dismissed the application
for an order seeking the annulment of the
Commission's decision of 16 October 1995 refusing to 1. declare that, by requiring, pursuant to the second
adopt interim measures to protect the applicant's paragraph of Article 3(3)(c) and (d) of the Royal
legitimate interests. Decree on Air Traffic of 15 March 1954, that
Community operators be resident or established for
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs including those one year in Belgium in order to register their aircraft
in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance. there and by refusing to authorize flights requested by
Community operators, thus unjustifiably or excessively
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: hindering the temporary or permanent provision of
services in the field of air traffic other than for
The appellant maintains that no Advocate General was transport, Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
heard by the Court of First Instance and that the Court of under Articles 6, 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty;
First Instance has thus breached Articles 111 and 114 of
its Rules of Procedure.
2. order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
By order of the Court of First Instance of 10 March 1997,
the decision on the plea of inadmissibility was reserved for
the final judgment on the ground that in the circumstances
of the case the procedure on the merits should be Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
continued before a decision was taken on the plea of
inadmissibility raised by the defendant.
Ð Infringement of Article 59 of the EC Treaty: in dealing
The appellant asserts that the Court of First Instance has with applications for flight authorizations from certain
no power to invalidate a decision of the Court of First Community operators wishing to provide aerial
Instance unless exceptional situations exist and that, in photography services over Belgium, the competent
ruling in the plea of admissibility without examining the authorities, after having moreover explained that in
merits of the case, the Court of First Instance robbed him any event authorization could be granted only for a
of a hearing and a report of the Judge-Rapporteur limited period and only for very specific purposes,
containing the factual and legal arguments and thereby ended up by automatically refusing such authorization.
constituted a denial of justice in so far as he had a The justification based on an absence of reciprocity
legitimate expectation to obtain a judgment in accordance reveals a clear attitude on the part of the
with the Treaty obligations of the Court of First Instance. administration which is contrary to the Community
principle of non-discrimination. Furthermore, the
Furthermore the appellant claims that the contested order principle of the freedom to provide services requires,
distorted the clear sense of the evidence in order to moreover, that decisions, pursuant to Article 51 of the
conceal the existence of a medical licence fraud. The Royal Decree of 15 March 1954, as to the legal,
appellant also claims that the contested order financial and technical standing of a foreign individual
demonstrates that the Court of First Instance is guilty of or undertaking should be taken by the Member State
misuse of power. of origin and that, therefore, the assessment by the
authorities of the host Member State may not
The appellant asserts that the reasoning in the contested disregard the requirements which the same operator
order is legally defective as it is not based on an already fulfils in its country of origin.
objectively determined situation in fact and law.

Ð Infringement of Articles 6 and 52 of the EC Treaty:
the provisions of the Royal Decree of 1954 cited in the
application are not compatible with Articles 6 and 52
Action brought on 28 May 1998 by the Commission of of the EC Treaty inasmuch as they discriminate
the European Communities against the Kingdom of against foreign natural and legal persons and hinder
Belgium their establishment by categorically precluding the
registration of any aircraft belonging to foreign
(Case C-203/98)
persons or companies during the first year of residence
(98/C 234/37) in Belgium.

An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities