Luxembourg, 22/06/2001 (Agence Europe) - France has been condemned for having reserved the profession of psychologist only for those holding French diplomas, whereas, since 1991, it ought to have allowed graduate psychologists from other Member States to work on its territory. On an complaint from an individual wanting to work in France, the Commission initiated this trial.
The French government did not dispute the fact that it had not transposed the 1998 EU directive on the profession of psychologist, a regulated profession, it said. France finally transposed the directive in March 2001, or 10 years after the allowed deadline. But no implementing decrees were taken.
It would seem that throughout all these years complaints to the Commission were infrequent and that France had settled certain situations on a case by case basis. France, like other countries, opted for a method of transposition profession by profession, which may partly explain this delay (in other countries, framework legislation enables them to move faster).
The legal experts, however, point out that, in virtue of the Court's "Francovic" ruling, anyone who can prove that a Member State's non-transposition of a directive has caused them harm may be compensated. Consequently, a graduate psychologist from another Member State that can prove harm suffered by the "closed shop" nature of this profession since 1991, may request and obtain compensation from a French court.
Starlings (Sturnus vulgaris), and two types of sparrows (Passer italieae and Passer motanues) do not benefit from this status of protected birds in Italy as set out in the European directive. Although hunting is prohibited, these three species may still be captured to serve as "decoys" (bait). The Court points out that the Italian law allowing for the capture and keeping of these species has not been formally amended, creating a regrettable "ambiguity".
For reasons of procedure, the judges did, however, regard the Commission's second complaint as inadmissible, which was: the criteria to meet to secure an exemption and hunt certain protected species did not comply with the directive. This complaint did not appear explicitly in the first letter of warning sent to Italy and could not be considered. The Commission now has to decide whether it is to take another case out against Italy on this issue.
Worth noting that the Sturnus vulgaris is a protected species in Italy that, due to an exemption, may be hunted in France.
According to the definition generally accepted by Member States, the term 'marriage' means a union between two persons of the opposite sex". The Court's fifteen judges, meeting in plenary, rejected the appeal by a homosexual European civil servant. D0 claimed that that his Swedish partnership contract gave him a right to family benefits. In the current Staff Regulation, this is only provided for for married people.
The European judges recognized that since 1998 "an increasing number of Member States have introduced, alongside marriage, statutory arrangements granting legal recognition (…) the same or comparable to those of marriage". But, "it is clear that apart from their great diversity, such arrangements for registering relationships between couples not previously recongnised in law are regarded in the Member States as being distinct from marriage".
The Court states it would suffice for the EU to amend the provisions of the Staff Regulation and assimilate homosexual couples to married couples for homosexuals to receive the same benefits. But the Community legislature has not shown any intention of adopting such measures, it explains.
The Swedish law of 1994 grants registered partnerships the same legal effects as marriage, "subject to the exceptions provided for". D. was supported by the Swedish, Danish and Dutch governments, all in favour of the homosexual point of view (for the Court's ruling that has just been confirmed, see EUROPE of 3 February 1999).