C 226/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.8.1999

1. When determining whether the Applicant, as a British Overseas Citizen not entitled (under United Kingdom law) to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, is a ‘person holding the nationality of a Member State’ and therefore is ‘a citizen of the Union’ for the purpose of Article 8 of the EC Treaty:

(c) Give rise to directly effective rights which citizens of the Union may invoke before national courts and tribunals. (d) Apply to situations which are wholly internal to a single Member State?

(1) What is the effect (if any) as a master of Community law of (a) the United Kingdom’s 1972 Declaration ‘on the definition of the term “nationals”’ which was made at the time of Accession to the European Communities and annexed to the Final Act of the Accession Conference, and (b) the United Kingdom’s 1982 Declaration ‘on the meaning of a UK national’ and (c) Declaration No. 2 to the Treaty on European Union signed on 7 February 1992 that nationality is to be decided solely by reference to the national law of the Member State concerned and Member States may declare, for information, who are to be considered to be their nationals for Community purposes?

Action brought on 26 May 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Case C-200/99) (1999/C 226/29) An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 May 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Mr Peter Oliver, Legal Adviser, acting as agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Comez de la ´ Cruz, member of the Legal Service of the Commission, Centre Wagner, Kirchberg. The Applicant claims that the Court should: — declare that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply with (i) Council Directive 95/68/EC (1) amending Directive 77/99/EEC (2) on health problems affecting the production and marketing of meat products and certain other products of animal origin, and (ii) Council Directive 96/90 (3) amending Directive 92/118/EEC (4) laying clown animal health and public health requirements governing trace in and imports into the Community of products not subject to the said requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A (1) to Directive 89/662/EEC (5) and, as regards pathogens, to Directive 90/425/EEC(6); the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil its obligations under this Directive and under the Treaty; and — order the United Kingdom to pay the costs.

(2) If and to the extent that the United Kingdom is not entitled, as a matter of Community law, to rely on the Declarations referred to in (1) above, what are the relevant criteria for identifying whether a person has nationality of a Member State for the purposes of Article 8 where domestic law identifies various categories of nationality only some of which confer a right to enter and remain in that Member State?

(3) In this context, what is the effect of the principle of respect for fundamental human rights under Community law claimed by the Applicant, in particular where the Applicant relies on Article 3(2) of the Fourth Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights that no one shall be deprived of the right to enter the territory of the State of which he is a national, which has not been ratified by the United Kingdom? 2. In the circumstances of the present case, does Article 8a(1) of the EC Treaty:

(a) Confer rights on a citizen of the Union to enter and remain in the Member State of which he is a national even where those rights are otherwise denied by national law.

Pleas in law and main arguments Article 249 CE (ex article 189) under which a directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period has expired without the United Kingdom

(b) Confer rights additional to those which existed under the EC Treaty prior to its amendment by the Treaty on European Union.

7.8.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 226/19

having enacted the provisions necessary to comply with the directives referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.

2. The ‘recognition’ directive precludes a doctor who holds a single degree and a single professional qualification from being included simultaneously in the register of medical practitioners and in that of dental practitioners; 3. It appears to the Commission that, so far as professional title is concerned, doctors who practise in Italy mainly as dentists do not practise with the title ‘odontoiatra’ (dental practitioner) but with that of ‘medico dentists’ (doctor dentist), a title which was not notified to the Commission. The Commission submits that the present situation runs counter to the coordinated system established by the ‘dental practitioner’ directives. A situation of this kind creates confusion in a host Member State and adversely affects professionals seeking to exercise their right of free movement, whose qualifications may be challenged by the host State and held to be at variance with the directives.
(1) Council directive of 25.7.1978, OJ L 233 of 24 August 1978, p. 10.

(1) of 22 December 1995, OJ L 332, 30.12.1995, p. 10. (2) Council Directive 77/99/EEC of 21 December 1976 on health problems affecting intra-Community trade in meat products OJ L 026, 31.1.1977, p. 85. (3) of 17 December 1996, OJ L 013, 16.1.1997, p. 24. (4) of 17 December 1992, OJ L 062, 15.3.1993, p. 49. (5) of 11 December 1989 concerning veterinary checks in intraCommunity trade with a view to the completion of the internal market. OJ L 395, 30.12.89, p. 13. (6) of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market. OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 29.

Action brought on 26 May 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-202/99) (1999/C 226/30) An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 May 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Enrico Traverso, Legal Adviser, and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la ´ Cruz, Wagner Centre, Rue Alcide de Gasperi. The applicant claims that the Court should: 1. declare that, by maintaining a second system of training for entry into the dental profession which is contrary to Directive 78/687/EEC (1), and by maintaining the possibility for doctors who practise as dentists to be doubly registered in the registers of medical and dental practitioners, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 78/687/EEC; 2. order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Højesteret by order of 21 May 1999 in the case of Henning Veedfald v Århus Regional Authority (Case C-203/99) (1999/C 226/31) Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of 21 May 1999 by the Højesteret (Danish Supreme Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 26 May 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Henning Veedfald v Århus Regional Authority on the following questions: Question 1: Must Article 7(a) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC (1) of 25 July 1985 be construed as meaning that a defective product is not put into circulation if the producer of the defective product, in the course of providing a specific medical service, produces and uses the product on a human organ which, at the time when the damage occurred, had been removed from a donor’s body in order to be prepared for transplant into another person’s body, with resulting damage to the organ? Question 2:

Pleas in law and main arguments 1. It is clear to the Commission that the second training provided for by Law No 409 of 24 July 1985 (dental training lasting three years) does not meet the mandatory requirements of Article 1 of the ‘coordination’ directive, which calls for special dental training lasting five years; Must Article 7(c) of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 be construed as meaning that a publicly owned hospital is free from liability under the directive for products produced and used by that hospital in the course of providing a specific publicly financed service to the person suffering injury and in respect of which that person has not paid any consideration?

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful