You are on page 1of 2

C 278/22 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 5.9.

98

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arrondissements- Ð annul the Commission appointing authority's decision
rechtbank te Arnhem by order of that court of 2 April of 22 July 1996 expressly rejecting the appellant's
1998 in the criminal proceedings against M. G. Berendse- complaint concerning his requests for application of
Koenen and H. D. Berendse, a partnership the weightings for Zaire,
(Case C-246/98)
(98/C 278/37)
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of both
proceedings,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
the European Communities by order of the
Arrondissementsrechtbank te Arnhem (District Court, the above being without prejudice to all other rights,
Arnhem) of 2 April 1998, received at the Court Registry entitlements, pleas in law and remedies relied on by the
on 9 July 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case appellant.
of M. G. Berendse-Koenen and H. D. Berendse, a
partnership, on the following questions:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
1. Does the Verordening Stoffen met sympathico
mimetische werking (PVV) 1991 and, more
particularly, Articles 2 and 3 thereof, contain technical
regulations which, pursuant to Article 8 of Council Ð Manifest contradiction in the grounds for the
Directive 83/189/EEC (1), as it stood at the time when judgment,
the Verordening came into force, should have been
notified to the Commission beforehand?
Ð Fundamental error Ð miscalculation: according to an
2. Does the Verordening Stoffen met sympathico analysis of the documents used by the Court of First
mimetische werking (PVV) 1991 and, more Instance, the fact that the appellant's remuneration
particularly, Articles 2 and 3 thereof, contain was paid in Belgian francs during the period between
provisions which constitute obstacles to freedom of June 1994 and July 1996 reduced his purchasing
trade for the purposes of Article 30 of the EC Treaty? power by 4,1 %, contrary to the legal finding in the
judgment under appeal to the effect that it had
(1) OJ L 109, 26.4.1983, p. 8. increased by 9 %,

Ð Manifestly erroneous reasoning: even supposing that
prices were parallel and purchasing power became
stable in Kinshasa and Brussels/Luxembourg as from
Appeal brought on 10 July 1998 by Mario Costacurta June 1994 (quod non), that would not mean that
against the judgment delivered on 26 May 1998 by prices and purchasing power were equal; and in no
the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of way would it mean that this was also true of the
the European Communities in Case T-177/96 between period between March 1993 and May 1994.
Mario Costacurta and Commission of the European
Communities
(1) OJ C 209, 4.7.1998, p. 38.
(Case C-249/98 P)
(98/C 278/38)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 May
1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities in Case T-177/96 between
Mario Costacurta and the Commission of the European Action brought on 10 July 1998 by the Commission of the
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of European Communities against the French Republic
the European Communities on 10 July 1998 by Mario (Case C-250/98)
Costacurta, represented by Albert Rodesch, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at 7Ð11 Route d'Esch. (98/C 278/39)

The appellant claims that the Court should:
An action against the French Republic was brought before
Ð declare the appeal admissible, the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 10 July 1998 by the Commission of the European
Ð hold the appeal to be well founded, Communities, represented by Antonio Caeiro, Legal
Adviser, and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting
Ð set aside the judgment delivered on 26 May 1998 by as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) in Case the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
T-177/96 Costacurta v. Commission (1), Kirchberg.
5.9.98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 278/23

The Commission of the European Communities claims 1. Should Articles 6 and/or 52 of the EC Treaty be
that the Court should: interpreted as precluding as incompatible therewith a
restriction resulting from the legislation of a Member
State concerning the taxation of assets, which grants a
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations shareholder an exemption from wealth tax in respect
and administrative measures necessary in order to of capital invested in shares in an undertaking Ð
comply with Council Directive 89/594/EEC of provided the shares form part of a material
30 October 1989 amending Directives 73/362/EEC, shareholding Ð but restricts that exemption to shares
77/452/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/1026/EEC and 80/154/ in a company established in that Member State?
EEC relating to the mutual recognition of diplomas,
certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications
as doctors, nurses responsible for general care, dental 2. If question 1 is answered in the negative, should
practitioners, veterinary surgeons and midwives, Articles 73b and 73d of the EC Treaty be interpreted
together with Directives 75/363/EEC, 78/1027/EEC as precluding as incompatible therewith a restrictive
and 80/155/EEC concerning the coordination of provision such as that described in question 1?
provisions laid down by law, regulation or
administrative action relating to the activities of
doctors, veterinary surgeons and midwives (1), the
French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Directive 89/594/EEC,

Action brought on 10 July 1998 by the Commission of the
Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs. European Communities against the French Republic
(Case C-252/98)

Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: (98/C 278/41)

Under the third paragraph of Article 189 and Article 5 of An action against the French Republic was brought before
the EC Treaty, each Member State is required to take all the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
necessary measures to transpose directives into its 10 July 1998 by the Commission of the European
domestic legal order prior to the expiry of the time limit Communities, represented by Antonio Caeiro, Principal
prescribed for doing so. That time limit, laid down in Legal Adviser, and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service,
Article 28 of Directive 89/594/EEC, expired on 8 May acting as Agents, with an address for service in
1991, but France has not communicated the provisions of Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
domestic law to be adopted. Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.

(1) OJ L 341, 23.11.1989, p. 19.
The Commission of the European Communities claims
that the Court should:

Ð declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
and administrative measures necessary in order to
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Gerechtshof te comply with Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty, as
's-Gravenhage in the case of C. Baars Jr against Inspecteur interpreted by the Court of Justice in its judgments in
der Belastingdienst Particulieren/Ondernemingen Gorin- Heylens (1) and Vlassopoulou (2), with regard to
chem persons who hold a diploma as a specialist nurse
obtained by the direct route' which has not been
(Case C-251/98) officially approved in France and who wish to pursue
in that country the profession of a nurse providing
(98/C 278/40)
general care, and, in particular, by requiring such
persons systematically to sit the final examinations
covering the whole of the programme contained in the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the three years of study required to qualify as a nurse,
European Communities by judgment of the Gerechtshof te without first taking into account the training already
's-Gravenhage (Regional Court of Appeal, The Hague) of acquired by the person concerned in another Member
8 July 1998, received at the Court Registry on 10 July State, albeit that a partial or total dispensation has
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of C. Baars Jr been allowed by France, the French Republic has
against Inspecteur der Belastingdienst Particulieren/ failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty,
Ondernemingen (Inspector, Head of the Tax Office Unit
responsible for Individuals/Undertakings) Gorinchem on
the following questions: Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.