Opinion of Mr Advocate General Darmon

Mr President,

Members of the Court,

1. The Commission complains that Belgium did not adopt within the ume prescribed all the provisions necessary for compliance with Council Directive No 75/362 of 16 June 1975 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in medicine, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (Official Journal, L 167, p. 1), and Council Directive No 75/363 of the same date concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of activities of doctors (Official Journal, L 167, p. 14).

2. During the proceedings, the Commission was obliged to redefine the purpose of its action. It admitted that neither Article 18 nor Article 19 of Directive No 75/362 required any special implementing measures in Belgium because that State does not regulate use of professional tides nor does it require its nationals to take an oath or make a solemn declaration before engaging in the activities referred to in the directive.

3. On the other hand, with regard to Directive No 75/362, the Commission considers, and the Kingdom of Belgium does not contradict it, that the latter:

4. With regard to Directive No 75/363, the defendant Sute has rightly been criticized for not complying with the minimum length of four years laid down for specialized training in tropical medicine (Article 5). It is true, however, that Belgium has asked to be removed from the list to be found in Article 7 (2) of Directive No 75/362 and composed of the Member Sutes providing training in that specialty. The failure to fulfil the obligations imposed by the directive none the less exists. It will only cease to exist when the Council has amended the directive in that regard.

5. In regard to each of those provisions, the defendant Sute has undertaken to amend the rules in force. It is none the less true that those rules, in their present state, are incomplete. As I have already indicated, the fact remains that Belgium has not complied with the time-limits expressly laid down in Directives Nos 75/362 and 75/363 for the implemenution of the obligations which they lay down. Let me join with the Commission in mentioning that the Court, in its judgments of 12 October 1982 in Cases 136, 148, 149 and 151/81, decided that

6. In my opinion, therefore, the Court should find that the Kingdom of Belgium, by not adopting within the time prescribed all the provisions necessary for compliance with Directive No 75/362 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in medicine, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services and Directive No 75/363 concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of activities of doctors, has failed to fulfil its obligations under the provisions of the Treaty in conjunction with those of the aforementioned directives.

1 Translated from the French.