You are on page 1of 2

C 278/26 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 5.9.

98

European Communities was brought before the Court placed in the institution and, as was argued at the oral
of Justice of the European Communities on 15 July hearing, the prejudice caused to the appellant's sexual
1998 by Arnaldo Lucaccioni, represented by Georges circumstances and to his enjoyment of life. That
Vandersanden, Laure Levi and O. Eben, of the Brussels damage is unconnected with the compensation for
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the physical defects' which is covered by Article 14 of the
offices of Fiduciaire Myson, 30 rue de Cessange. Rules on the insurance of officials against the risk of
accident and of occupational disease.
The appellant claims that the Court should:

Ð The Court of First Instance took it upon itself, without
Ð set aside the judgment delivered on 14 May 1998
stating any appropriate reasons therefor, to include the
by the Court of First Instance of the European
material and non-material loss suffered by the
Communities in Case T-165/95 (1), in which it rejected
appellant in the capital sum paid to him under the
the appellant's claims as to their substance,
social security scheme of Community officials.

Ð consequently, allow the claims advanced by the
appellant in the proceedings at first instance, apart Ð The Court of First Instance failed to penalise the delay
from his application for compensation for material in dealing with the matter by awarding default
damage in the sum of BEF 12 500 000 corresponding interest.
to the material loss arising from certain sales of
immovable property,
(1) OJ C 209, 4.7.1998, p. 37.
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:

Ð Infringement of Community law.
Action brought on 15 July 1998 by the Commission of the
Ð Although the Court of First Instance acknowledged European Communities against the Federal Republic of
that a compensation scheme based on the ordinary Germany
law relating to liability may coexist with the scheme
(Case C-259/98)
recognised by the Staff Regulations of officials of the
European Communities, providing for the award of (98/C 278/47)
lump-sum compensation by the social security system,
it omitted to consider the factors giving rise to liability
under the ordinary law, as incurred by the
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
Commission, namely: fault, damage and the
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
relationship of cause and effect existing as between the
Communities on 15 July 1998 by the Commission of the
fault and the damage.
European Communities, represented by Michael Niejahr
and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, with an address
Ð The Court of First Instance failed to carry out a for service at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
correct assessment of the material and non-material Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
damage suffered by the appellant.

Contrary to the findings of the Court of First Instance, The applicant claims that the Court should:
the lump-sum capital amount which is guaranteed by
the Staff Regulations and paid under the insurance
scheme entered into by the Commission Ð to which Ð declare that, by imposing, for Community nationals
officials pay contributions Ð cannot include who hold a diploma not obtained in Germany
compensation for material damage equivalent to the qualifying them to carry on the profession of dental
difference between an invalidity pension and the salary practitioner in accordance with Council Directives 78/
of an official. 686/EEC (1) and 78/687/EEC (2), an obligatory
introductory course as a specific requirement in order
The non-material damage pleaded by the appellant for them to become eligible for appointment as a
concerns all of the following: the physical and dental practitioner of a social security scheme
professional damage suffered by him, the daily distress practising independently in Germany, the Federal
arising from his having had to work for 20 years in an Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
environment which was dangerous to his health and under those Directives, in particular under Article 20
resulting from his illness and future developments of Directive 78/686/EEC and Article 5 of Directive 78/
relating thereto (recurrence and premature death), his 687/EEC,
physical sufferings due to the illness and the
consequences of surgical operations, the absence of
any acknowledgement by the Commission of its Ð order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
liability and its failure to have regard to the trust costs.
5.9.98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 278/27

Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: Article 7 of the Directive. However, the Commission
also points out that the national decision to adopt an
integrated strategy to combat pollution rather than
Under Article 20 of Directive 78/686/EEC, Member States evaluating the situation substance by substance makes it
which require their own nationals to complete a difficult to verify whether Article 7 is being complied
preparatory training period in order to become eligible for with, in particular as regards the 99 priority substances, if
appointment as a dental practitioner of a social security the information forwarded to the Commission is not set
scheme could, for a period of eight years following out in an orderly and transparent or at least non-
notification of the Directive, impose a training period of a contradictory fashion.
maximum of six months on nationals of other Member
States. That eight-year period expired on 28 July 1986.
However, under Article 17 of the Zulassungsordnung für In any event, the Commission has reason to conclude that
Vertragszahnärzte (Rules on Admission for Appointed the Portuguese Republic has not completed identification
Dental Practitioners) the German authorities require of the substances existing in Portugal which appear on
applicants from other Member States to attend one or the list of 99 substances and, in relation to those which
three-day courses, in which linguistic proficiency and it has identified, it has not adopted genuine reduction
knowledge of German social security law are also tested. programmes and has only partially set quality objectives.
In that respect, the Commission considers that the few
(1) OJ L 233, 24.8.1978, p. 1. voluntary agreements with some industrial sectors are
(2) OJ L 233, 24.8.1978, p. 10. not binding and cannot in any event be regarded as
programmes within the meaning of Article 7 of the
Directive. But even if they were, they do not cover all the
industrial sectors and still less do they reduce pollution
deriving from various sources.

Action brought on 17 July 1998 by the Commission of the In addition, as far as the plans for de-pollution of the
European Communities against the Portuguese Republic River AÂ gueda, Bacia do Guadiana and Bacia de Alcanena
(Case C-261/98) are concerned, although they may contribute to improving
water quality, they do not constitute, from the point of
(98/C 278/48) view either of geographical cover or of content, timetabled
programmes for the reduction of pollution from the 99
priority substances, with clear quality objectives and
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought emission standards.
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 17 July 1998 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho, (1) OJ L 129, 18.5.1976, p. 23.
of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.

The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
Action brought on 17 July 1998 by the Commission of the
European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt and/or communicate
to the Commission summaries of the programmes for (Case C-262/98)
the reduction of pollution incorporating quality
objectives and the corresponding results in respect of (98/C 278/49)
the 99 priority substances mentioned in the first indent
of List II in the Annex to Council Directive 76/464/
EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
environment of the Community (1), the Portuguese on 17 July 1998 by the Commission of the European
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Communities, represented by Frank Benyon, Legal
Article 7 of that Directive and the third paragraph of Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Ð order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
The Commission of the European Communities claims
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: that the Court should:

The Commission recognises that the Portuguese Ð declare that, by failing to communicate the laws,
authorities have been making efforts to comply with regulations and administrative measures necessary in