Anda di halaman 1dari 2

13.3.

1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 71/21

Action brought on 18 January 1999 by the Commission of Appeal brought on 18 January 1999 by TEAM Srl,
the European Communities against the Portuguese established in Rome, against the judgment delivered on
Republic 29 October 1998 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities in Case
(Case C-12/99) T-13/96 between TEAM Srl and the Commission of the
European Communities
(1999/C 71/36)
(Case C-13/99 P)
(1999/C 71/37)

An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought An appeal against the judgment delivered on 29 October
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities 1998 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First
on 18 January 1999 by the Commission of the European Instance of the European Communities in Case T-13/96
Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis and between TEAM Srl and the Commission of the European
António Caeiros, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of the European Communities on 18 January 1999 by TEAM
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Srl, represented by Antonio Tizzano and Gian Michele
Centre, Kirchberg. Roberti, with an address for service at the offices of
Studio Legale Tizzano, 36 Place du Grand Sablon, 1000
Brussels.

The appellant claims that the Court should:


The applicant claims that the Court should:
Ð set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 29 October
1998 in Case T-13/96;
1. Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
the laws, regulations and administrative provisions Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of the present
necessary to comply with Council Directive proceedings.
94/45/EC (1) of 22 September 1994 on the
establishment of a European Works Council or a Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
procedure in Community-scale undertakings and
Community-scale groups of undertakings for the 1. On 11 May 1998 the Court of First Instance adopted
purposes of informing and consulting employees a measure of organisation of procedure in the form of
within the period prescribed by Article 14(1) thereof, a request to the Commission to produce copies of the
the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its documents relating to the contested tender procedure.
obligations under the first paragraph of Article 5 and That measure had in fact been applied for by the
the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty appellant as early as 26 January 1996, when it first
as well as under Article 14(1) of Directive 94/45/EC; brought the action, that is to say, over two years
and previously. In addition, the measure in question was
adopted six months after the closure of the written
procedure, in the context of the oral hearing. In the
appellant's view, that manner of proceeding constitutes
a clear violation of the rights of the defence, since the
2. Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
delay attending the adoption of the measure was
excessive and unjustified.

2. The Court of First Instance refused to take into


Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: consideration crucial documents submitted by the
appellant during the course of the hearing. According
to the appellant, the Court of First Instance distorted'
the evidence submitted by the appellant, inasmuch as
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third it stated that that evidence was irrelevant' for the
paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of purposes of determining the dispute. Moreover, the
Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to Court of First Instance provided no reasons for its
adopt the measures necessary to transpose directives decision.
addressed to them into their domestic law before the
expiry of the period prescribed for doing so. That period 3. In seeking to ascertain and characterise the reparable
expired on 22 September 1996 without Portugal having damage, the Court of First Instance completely
brought into force the necessary provisions. distorted the nature of the damage as claimed by the
appellant. In addition, the Court of First Instance
manifestly failed to provide a statement of reasons,
(1) OJ L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64. inasmuch as it did not furnish a clear explanation of
its reasons for completely disregarding the legal
presentation by the appellant of its case,
notwithstanding that this was clearly set out and fully
argued by the latter.
C 71/22 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 13.3.1999

The appellant further observes that the Court of First the European Communities on 25 January 1999 by the
Instance misapplied the criteria for determining the French Republic, represented by Kareen Rispal-Bellanger,
causal link. Deputy Director responsible for matters of international
economic law and Community law in the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, and FreÂdeÂrik Million, Charge de Mission,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the French Embassy, 8b Boulevard
Joseph II.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour
Administrative, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, by a The French Republic claims that the Court should:
judgment of 21 January 1999 in the case of Ministre de la
Sante v Jeff Erpelding
Ð annul the Commission's decision C(1998) 3515 final
(Case C-16/99)
of 4 November 1998 concerning aid granted to
(1999/C 71/38) Nouvelle Filature LainieÁre de Roubaix, inasmuch as it
declares the aid granted to be incompatible with the
common market;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of 21 January 1999
of the Cour Administrative, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
which was received at the Court Registry on 25 January
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ministre de la Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Sante v Jeff Erpelding on the following questions:

May Article 19 of Directive 93/16/EEC (1) to facilitate the Ð Breach of an essential rule governing the procedure for
free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of reviewing grants of State aid: the Commission adopted
their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal the decision taken by it on the basis of the
qualifications be applied, in a State with provisions on this information available to it', whereas the Court's
matter laid down by law, in favour of an applicant with a case-law and the rule which the Commission imposes
qualification obtained in another Member State but not on itself, both in its publications (1) and in its
included in the list of specialist training courses contained decision-making practice, required it to demand the
in Article 7 of the Directive who requests authorization, Member State concerned, by interim decision
on the basis of the training he has acquired in the other addressed to that State, to communicate to it the
Member State, to use an equivalent professional title in information necessary in order for it to reach its
the host State? decision.

If not, Ð Infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty.

Does Article 10 of Directive 93/16/EEC confer on holders Ð Infringement of Article 92 of the EC Treaty: manifest
of academic titles acquired in another Member State error of assessment in declaring the aid in question to
merely the option of using their academic title or, where be incompatible with the common market on the basis
appropriate, the abbreviation thereof, or, conversely, of Article 92(3)(c) of the EC Treaty:
should the text of the directive be interpreted to the effect
that only the academic title in the language of the country Ð The Commission's arguments in support of its
in which it was awarded may be authorised, to the conclusion that the undertaking concerned was
exclusion of equivalent titles formulated in the language uncompetitive and, consequently, not viable on a
and according to the terminology of the host State? long-term basis, are either wholly irrelevant or
deeply flawed. Whilst it is true that provision was
(1) OJ L 165, 7.7.1993, p. 1. made in the 1996 financial year for the investment
premium of FF 22 million, that year Ð involving
as it did the aforesaid exceptional element Ð
could not be used as the basis for assessing the Ð
allegedly negative Ð trend shown by the net
results in subsequent years, and thus for evaluating
Action brought on 25 January 1999 by the French the competitiveness of the undertaking. The
Republic against the Commission of the European discontinuance of one of its activities (fancy yarn')
Communities in 1998 cannot justify the conclusion that there
was a decrease in the competitiveness of all the
(Case C-17/99) undertaking's activities, since it concerned a
(1999/C 71/39) marginal activity and not, as the Commission
claims, an important part of the activities of the
new undertaking. Lastly, it was not open to the
An action against the Commission of the European Commission to infer from that factor that there
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of was a lack of competitiveness, unless it is