Salomone Haim contra Kassenzahnärztliche Vereinigung Nordrhein.
| Jurisdiction | European Union |
| Celex Number | 61997CJ0424 |
| ECLI | ECLI:EU:C:2000:357 |
| Docket Number | C-424/97 |
| Court | Court of Justice (European Union) |
| Procedure Type | Reference for a preliminary ruling |
| Date | 04 July 2000 |
Judgment of the Court of 4 July 2000. - Salomone Haim v Kassenzahnärztliche Vereinigung Nordrhein. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Landgericht Düsseldorf - Germany. - Member State liability in the event of a breach of Community law - Breaches attributable to a public-law body of a Member State - Conditions for the liability of the Member State and of a public-law body of that State - Compatibility of a language requirement with freedom of establishment. - Case C-424/97.
European Court reports 2000 Page I-05123
Summary
Parties
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
1. Community law - Rights conferred on individuals - Where breached by a Member State - Obligation to make good damage caused to individuals by a public-law body - Possibility of that body, in addition to the Member State, being liable
2. Community law - Rights conferred on individuals - Breach by a Member State - Obligation to make good damage caused to individuals - Conditions - Sufficiently serious breach - Definition
3. Freedom of movement for persons - Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Practitioners of dentistry - Appointment, as a social security dental practitioner, of a national of another Member State - Requirement of linguistic knowledge - Permissible - Limits
(EC Treaty, Art. 52 (now, after amendment, Art. 43 EC); Council Directive 78/686, Art. 3)
Summary
1. It is for each Member State to ensure that individuals obtain reparation for loss and damage caused to them by non-compliance with Community law, whichever public authority is responsible for the breach and whichever public authority is in principle, under the law of the Member State concerned, responsible for making reparation.
However, reparation for loss and damage caused to individuals by national measures taken in breach of Community law does not necessarily have to be provided by the Member State itself in order for its obligations under Community law to be fulfilled. Thus, in the Member States in which certain legislative or administrative tasks are devolved to territorial bodies with a certain degree of autonomy or to any other public-law body legally distinct from the State, reparation for that loss and damage caused by measures taken by a public-law body may be made by that body.
Nor does Community law preclude a public-law body, in addition to the Member State itself, from being liable to make reparation for loss and damage caused to individuals as a result of measures which it took in breach of Community law.
( see paras 27, 29, 31-32, 34, and operative part 1 )
2. In order to determine whether there is a serious breach of Community law, qua one of the conditions to be satisfied for a Member State to be required to make reparation for loss and damage caused to individuals as a result of breaches of Community law for which the State can be held responsible, account must be taken of the extent of the discretion enjoyed by the Member State concerned. The existence and the scope of that discretion must be determined by reference to Community law and not by reference to national law. The discretion which may be conferred by national law on the official or the institution responsible for the breach of Community law is therefore irrelevant in this respect.
In order to determine whether a mere infringement of Community law by a Member State constitutes a sufficiently serious breach, a national court hearing a claim for reparation must take account of all the factors which characterise the situation put before it. Those factors include, in particular, the clarity and precision of the rule infringed, whether the infringement and the damage caused was intentional or involuntary, whether any error of law was excusable or inexcusable, and the fact that the position taken by a Community institution may have contributed towards the adoption or maintenance of national measures or practices contrary to Community law.
( see paras 36, 40, 41-43, 49, and operative part 2 )
3. The competent authorities of a Member State may make the appointment, as a social security scheme dental practitioner, of a national of another Member State who is established in the first Member State and authorised to practise there but has none of the qualifications mentioned in Article 3 of Directive 78/686 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of the formal qualifications of practitioners of dentistry, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services, conditional upon his having the linguistic knowledge necessary for the exercise of his profession in the Member State of establishment.
The reliability of a dental practitioner's communication with his patient and with administrative authorities and professional bodies constitutes an overriding reason of general interest such as to justify making the appointment as a dental practitioner under a social security scheme subject to language requirements. However, it is important that such language requirements do not go beyond what is necessary to attain that objective. In this respect, it is in the interest of patients whose mother tongue is not the national language that there exist a certain number of dental practitioners who are also capable of communicating with such persons in their own language.
( see paras 59-61, and operative part 3 )
PartiesIn Case C-424/97,
REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by the Landgericht Düsseldorf, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Salomone Haim
and
Kassenzahnärztliche Vereinigung Nordrhein
on the liability of a Member State and, possibly, of a public-law body of that State for loss and damage caused by an infringement of Community law, and on the legality of making the appointment of a national of another Member State as a dental practitioner under a social security scheme conditional upon his having a sufficient knowledge of the language of the host State,
THE COURT,
composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur), L. Sevón, R. Schintgen (Presidents of Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet, Judges,
Advocate General: J. Mischo,
Registrar: H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar,
after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:
- Mr Haim, by H. Ungewitter, Rechtsanwalt, Düsseldorf,
- the German Government, by E. Röder, Ministerialrat in the Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs, A. Dittrich, Ministerialrat in the Federal Ministry of Justice, and C.-D. Quassowski, Regierungsdirektor in the Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs, acting as Agents,
- the Greek Government, by A. Samoni-Rantou, Legal Adviser to the Community Law Section of the Special Legal Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and S. Vodina and G. Karipsiadis, Legal Assistants in the same department, acting as Agents,
- the Spanish Government, by N. Díaz Abad, Abogado del Estado, acting as Agent,
- the Italian Government, by Professor U. Leanza, Head of the Legal Department in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agent, assisted by P.G. Ferri, Avvocato dello Stato,
- the Swedish Government, by E. Brattgård, Departementsråd in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agent,
- the United Kingdom Government, by J.E. Collins, Assistant Treasury Solicitor, acting as Agent, and E. Sharpston, Barrister,
- the Commission of the European Communities, by B. Mongin and P. van Nuffel, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, Rechtsanwalt, Hamburg,
having regard to the Report for the Hearing,
after hearing the oral observations of Mr Haim, represented by U. Faust, Rechtsanwalt, Aachen; of the Kassenzahnärztliche Vereinigung Nordrhein, represented by B. Bellwinkel, Rechtsanwalt, Düsseldorf; of the German Government, represented by A. Dittrich; of the Danish Government, represented by J. Molde, Head of Division in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agent; of the Greek Government, represented by A. Samoni-Rantou and G. Karipsiadis; of the Spanish Government, represented by N. Díaz Abad; of the French Government, represented by A. de Bourgoing, Chargé de Mission in the Legal Affairs Directorate of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agent; of the Italian Government, represented by G. Aiello, Avvocato dello Stato; of the Swedish Government, represented by A. Kruse, Departementsråd in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acting as Agent; of the United Kingdom Government, represented by E. Sharpston...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Relaciones entre el Derecho de la Unión Europea y los Derechos internos
...pública autora de la violación del Derecho comunitario no disponía de las competencias, conocimientos o medios necesarios (STJUE de 4 de julio de 2000, asunto C-424/97 [j 20]). En consecuencia, el ámbito de aplicación de este principio se ha ampliado a través de los pronunciamientos posteri......
-
Opinion of Advocate General Emiliou delivered on 8 March 2022.
...del 2 giugno 2016, Bogendorff von Wolffersdorff (C‑438/14, EU:C:2016:401, punto 78). 57 V., ad esempio, sentenza del 4 luglio 2000, Haim (C‑424/97, EU:C:2000:357, punto 58 Non ritengo necessario richiamare lavori specifici al riguardo, poiché una rapida ricerca su Internet è in grado di off......
-
Opinion of Advocate General Ćapeta delivered on 6 July 2023.
...che uno Stato membro potesse non essere responsabile pur non disponendo di potere discrezionale sia la sentenza del 4 luglio 2000, Haim (C‑424/97, EU:C:2000:357). 63 V., ad esempio, sentenze del 12 luglio 2001, Comafrica e Dole Fresh Fruit Europe/Commissione (T‑198/95, T‑171/96, T‑230/97, T......
-
Diana Elisabeth Lindman.
...cited in footnote 4 above, paragraph 29 et seq. 24 – See, among others, Case C-294/000 (cited in footnote 21 above), paragraph 39; Case C-424/97 [2000] ECR I-5123, paragraph Case C-67/98 (cited in footnote 4 above), paragraph 29 and Case C-55/94 (cited in footnote 9 above), paragraph 37. 25......
-
Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.
...the attainment of the objective which they pursue; and they must not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain that objective (see Case C-424/97 Haim [2000] ECR I-5123, paragraph 57 and the case-law cited, and Commission v Greece, paragraph 49). 19 It is in the light of those principle......
-
La libre circulación de abogados/as dentro de la Unión Europea
...general 2001/19/ CE del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 14 de mayo de 2001 37 . La Di-34 Sentencia de 4 de julio de 2000, asunto Haim, C-424/97, párrafo 26, 27 y 28, ECLI:EU:C:2000:123. 35 Directiva 92/51 del Consejo, de 18 de junio de 1992, relativa a un segundo sistema general de rec......
-
¿Cumple nuestro ordenamiento los requisitos exigidos por la sentencia Köbler?
...C-178/94, C-179/94 y C-188/94 a C-190/94), apdo. 20; de 2.4.1998, as. Norbrook Laboratories (C-127/95), apdo. 106; y de 4.7.2000, as. Haim (C-424/97), apdo. 26. 2 SSTJ as. Brasserie du pêcheur y Factortame , antes citada, apdo. 32; de 1.6.1999, as. Konle (C-302/97), apartado 62; y as. Haim ......
-
Jurisprudencia
...Sentencia de 29 de octubre de 1998, Comisión v. España, C-114/97, ECLI:EU:C:1993:717. Sentencia de 4 de julio de 2000, asunto Haim, C-424/97, ECLI:EU:C:2000:123. Sentencia de 7 de febrero de 2002, asunto Comisión v. Italia, C-279/00, ECLI:EU:C:2001:425. Sentencia de 13 de noviembre de 2003,......
-
Obligación de indemnizar por la aplicación de una ley contraria al Derecho de la Unión Europea
...Telecommunications 74 , la Sentencia Denkavit 75 , la Sentencia Brinkmann 76 y la Sentencia Robins 77 . 72. Sentencia Haim, de 4.7.2000, C-424/97, apdo. 40. 73. Sentencia Brasserie, cit., apdo. 56. 74. De 26.3.1996, C-392/93, en la que el Tribunal de Luxemburgo consideró que no se cumplía e......