61983CJ0108_EN
Parties
Subject of the case
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part
Parties
IN CASE 108/83
GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG, REPRESENTED BY ITS AGENT, JULIEN ALEX, DIRECTOR OF INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC RELATIONS AT THE MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, ASSISTED BY ANDRE ELVINGER, OF THE LUXEMBOURG BAR, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE LATTER ' S CHAMBERS,
APPLICANT,
V
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL, FRANCESCO PASETTI-BOMBARDELLA, AND ITS LEGAL ADVISER, ROLAND BIEBER, ACTING AS AGENTS, WITH AN ADDRESS FOR SERVICE IN LUXEMBOURG AT THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, KIRCHBERG,
DEFENDANT,
Subject of the case
APPLICATION FOR A DECLARATION THAT THE RESOLUTION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT DATED 20 MAY 1983 ON THE CONSEQUENCES TO BE DRAWN FROM THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ' S ADOPTION, ON 7 JULY 1981, OF THE ZAGARI REPORT ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL, C 151, P . 155 ) IS VOID,
Grounds
1 BY AN APPLICATION LODGED AT THE COURT REGISTRY ON 10 JUNE 1983, THE GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG BROUGHT PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO ARTICLES 31 AND 38 OF THE ECSC TREATY AND, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 173 OF THE EEC TREATY AND ARTICLE 146 OF THE EAEC TREATY SEEKING A DECLARATION THAT THE RESOLUTION ON THE CONSEQUENCES TO BE DRAWN FROM THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ' S ADOPTION, ON 7 JULY 1981, OF THE ZAGARI REPORT, PUBLISHED IN THE MINUTES OF THE SITTING OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ON 20 MAY 1983 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL 1983, C 161, 20 . 6 . 1983, P . 155 ), IS VOID .
2 IT SHOULD BE RECALLED THAT THE RESOLUTION OF THE PARLIAMENT OF 7 JULY 1981, ADOPTING THE ZAGARI REPORT, WAS THE SUBJECT OF AN APPLICATION FOR A
DECLARATION OF NULLITY BROUGHT BY THE GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG, WHICH LED TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF 10 FEBRUARY 1983 ( CASE 230/81 LUXEMBOURG V PARLIAMENT ( 1983 ) ECR 255 ).
3 ACCORDING TO THE RESOLUTION AT ISSUE, THE PARLIAMENT, CONSIDERING THAT ' ' IT IS ENTITLED TO TAKE, AS REGARDS THE ORGANIZATION OF ITS WORK, ALL NECESSARY DECISIONS THAT DO NOT REQUIRE THE PARTICIPATION OR APPROVAL OF THE COUNCIL ' ', THAT, ' ' IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECISIONS OF 7 JULY 1981, ALL PART-SESSIONS ARE HELD IN STRASBOURG, AN OFFICIAL PLACE OF WORK OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ' ', THAT ' ' THE MEETINGS OF THE COMMITTEES AND POLITICAL GROUPS ARE NORMALLY HELD IN BRUSSELS ' '
AND THAT ' ' LUXEMBOURG IS DEDICATED TO REMAINING THE SEAT OF THE JUDICIAL AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ' ',
' ' 1 . HAS DECIDED :
( A ) TO DRAW, IN THE 1983 BUDGET AND IN SUBSEQUENT BUDGETS, THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE DECISIONS OF 7 JULY 1981 ;
( B)TO PROCEED TO DIVIDE UP STAFF OF THE SECRETARIAT IN THE MOST RATIONAL MANNER BETWEEN THE PLACES OF WORK
BY ARRANGING FOR SERVICES THAT ARE MAINLY CONCERNED WITH THE FUNCTIONING OF PART-SESSIONS TO BE BASED PERMANENTLY IN THE PLACE WHERE PARLIAMENT HOLDS ITS SESSIONS, NAMELY STRASBOURG,
BY ARRANGING FOR SERVICES THAT ARE MAINLY CONCERNED WITH THE FUNCTIONING OF THE COMMITTEES TO BE BASED IN BRUSSELS ;
( C)TO TAKE ACCOUNT IN FUTURE OF THIS DIVISION OF STAFF WHEN RECRUITING NEW STAFF ;
( D)TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE LEGITIMATE INTERESTS OF STAFF BY APPLYING AS BROADLY AS POSSIBLE THE PRINCIPLE OF VOLUNTARY TRANSFER AND BY FULLY INVOLVING STAFF REPRESENTATIVES IN WORKING OUT THE MEASURES TO BE TAKEN IN IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS RESOLUTION ;
2.INSTRUCTS THE BUREAU TO INSTITUTE WITHIN THE ADMINISTRATION STRUCTURAL CHANGES THAT WILL PERMIT GREATER FLEXIBILITY IN THE WORK RATE, FOR INSTANCE WHERE THE RAPID ORGANIZATION OF SPECIAL PART-SESSIONS IS CONCERNED ;
3.INSTRUCTS THE SECRETARY GENERAL TO PREPARE WITHOUT DELAY THE REORGANIZATION MEASURES REQUIRED BY THIS RESOLUTION . ' '
THE CONDUCT OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS
4 THE CONTESTED RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED WITHOUT DEBATE AND WITHOUT VOTE BY THE WRITTEN PROCEDURE PROVIDED FOR IN RULE 49 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE PARLIAMENT, AS IT WAS WORDED AT THE TIME OF THE FACTS .
5 AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE MINUTES OF THE SITTING ON 10 MARCH 1983 ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL C 96, 11 . 4 . 1983, P . 45 ), THE PRESIDENT OF THE PARLIAMENT INFORMED THE PLENARY ASSEMBLY THAT THE MOTION FOR THE RESOLUTION AT ISSUE ' ' HAD BEEN SIGNED BY MORE THAN HALF THE MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT ' ' . HE ALSO STATED THAT, ' ' SINCE . . . THIS MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION HAD BEEN TABLED WITH ALL THE SIGNATURES, IT HAD NOT BEEN POSSIBLE TO APPLY THE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN IN PARAGRAPHS 2 AND 3 OF RULE 49, PARTICULARLY AS REGARDS MEMBERS '
RIGHTS TO TABLE AMENDMENTS ' ' . THE PRESIDENT CONSIDERED THAT ' ' UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION SHOULD BE POSTED ON THE NOTICE BOARDS FOR AT LEAST 30 DAYS, AND POSSIBLY, SUBSEQUENTLY FORWARDED TO THE RELEVANT PARLIAMENTARY BODIES WHO WOULD CONSIDER THE ACTION TO BE TAKEN ON THIS TEXT WITH SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES IN CASE 230/81 BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS ' ' .
6 THE PRESIDENT OF THE PARLIAMENT, IN A LETTER OF 21 MARCH 1983, REQUESTED THE COMMITTEE ON THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PETITIONS TO GIVE AN OPINION ON WHETHER RULE 49 WAS APPLICABLE TO MATTERS RELATING TO THE INTERNAL ORGANIZATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND, IF SO, HOW THIS AFFECTED THE MANDATE GIVEN TO THE BUREAU BY THE RESOLUTION OF 7 JULY 1981 ( WORKING DOCUMENT OF THE COMMITTEE, PE 84.980, OF 18 . 5 . 1983 ).
7 BY A LETTER OF 23 MARCH 1983, A SECOND QUESTION WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE CONCERNING THE POSSIBILIY OF AMENDMENTS AND THE DEADLINE FOR TABLING THEM ( SAME DOCUMENT, NO PE 84.980 ).
8 AFTER IT HAD BEEN ANNOUNCED THAT THE RESOLUTION HAD BEEN TABLED, ONE SIGNATURE WAS WITHDRAWN AND FOUR OTHERS WERE ADDED ( MINUTES OF THE SITTING OF 20 . 5 . 1983, OFFICIAL JOURNAL C 161, 20 . 6 . 1983, P . 155 ).
9 AT THE SITTING ON 20 MAY 1983, THE PRESIDENT OF THE SITTING INFORMED THE PLENARY ASSEMBLY THAT, ' ' IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE PRESIDENT AT THE SITTING ON 10 MARCH 1983, THE MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION . . . HAD BEEN FORWARDED TO THE MEMBERS OF THE BUREAU AND TO THE SECRETARY GENERAL ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS COULD IN NO WAY PREJUDICE THE OUTCOME OF THE DELIBERATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PETITIONS ' ' . THAT DECLARATION WAS FOLLOWED IN THE MINUTES BY THE TEXT OF THE RESOLUTION AT ISSUE AND THE LIST OF SIGNATORIES ( POINT 5 OF THE MINUTES ).
10 THE OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PETITIONS, DATED 18 MAY 1983, WAS FORWARDED TO THE PRESIDENT ON 2 JUNE 1983 . IN THAT OPINION, THE COMMITTEE STATES THAT, SINCE THE MOTION FOR THE RESOLUTION AT ISSUE HAS OBTAINED THE SIGNATURE OF MORE THAN HALF OF THE MEMBERS, IT ' ' HAS . . . BECOME A RESOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT LIKE ANY OTHER ' ' . THE OPINION CONCLUDES THAT THE PROCEDURE UNDER RULE 49 DOES NOT APPLY WHERE ' ' PARLIAMENT HAS BEEN CONSULTED . . . OR IS REQUIRED TO EXERCISE A SPECIFIC DUTY RELATING TO ARRANGEMENTS FOR ITS INTERNAL ORGANIZATION ' '
( DOCUMENT PE 84.980 OF 18 MAY 1983, CITED ABOVE ).
11 AN OBJECTION TO THAT INTERPRETATION HAVING BEEN SUBMITTED UNDER RULE 111 ( 4 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE ( MINUTES OF THE SITTING ON 7 . 6 . 1983, DOCUMENT PE 85.065, OFFICIAL JOURNAL C 184, 11 . 7 . 1983, P . 17 ), THE PARLIAMENT, AT THE SITTING ON 9 JUNE 1983, APPROVED ' ' THE REQUEST FOR REFERRAL BACK TO COMMITTEE OF THIS INTERPRETATION ' '
( MINUTES OF THE SITTING ON 9 . 6 . 1983, DOCUMENT PE 85.067, OFFICIAL JOURNAL C 184, 11 . 7 . 1983, P . 104 ).
12 ON THE FOLLOWING DAY, 10 JUNE 1983, THE GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG INSTITUTED THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS FOR A DECLARATION THAT THE RESOLUTION IN QUESTION WAS VOID .
13 AT THE SITTING ON 10 OCTOBER 1983, THE PRESIDENT INFORMED PARLIAMENT THAT THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PETITIONS HAD FORWARDED AN OPINION, IN WHICH IT WAS STATED THAT, ' ' FOLLOWING PARLIAMENT ' S REJECTION ON 9 JUNE 1983 OF AN INTERPRETATION PROPOSED BY THE COMMITTEE . . ., THE COMMITTEE CONSIDERED THAT AN AMENDMENT TO RULE 49 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO PARLIAMENT IN THE NEAR FUTURE . . . . AT ALL EVENTS, SUCH AN AMENDMENT TO RULE 49 WOULD NOT BE RETROACTIVE ' ' . THE
PRESIDENT THEREFORE CONSIDERED ' ' THAT THE RESERVATIONS CONCERNING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF THE RESOLUTION NO LONGER HELD ' ' . WITH REGARD TO ' ' THE SUBSTANCE AND CONTENT OF THE RESOLUTION ' ', HE REMINDED PARLIAMENT ' ' OF THE STATEMENT WHICH HE HAD MADE AT THE SITTING OF 10 MARCH 1983, ACCORDING TO WHICH ' THE RELEVANT PARLIAMENTARY BODIES WOULD CONSIDER THE ACTION TO BE TAKEN ON THIS TEXT WITH SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES IN CASE 230/81 BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS '
' '
( OFFICIAL JOURNAL C 307, 14 . 11 . 1983, P . 3 ).
14 IN ITS REPORT OF 28 OCTOBER 1983 ( WORKING DOCUMENT NO 1-975 OF 9 NOVEMBER 1983, PE 86.280/FIN .) THE COMMITTEE ON THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PETITIONS STATED, AS REGARDS ITS INTERPRETATION OF RULE 49, THAT ' ' AT THE PLENARY SITTING OF 9 JUNE 1983, THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT REJECTED THIS INTERPRETATION ' '
AND IT PROPOSED AN AMENDMENT TO THE SAID RULE .
15 IT APPEARS THAT, UP TO THE PRESENT MOMENT, NEITHER THE BUREAU NOR THE GENERAL SECRETARIAT HAVE TAKEN ANY MEASURES ON THE BASIS OF THE RESOLUTION AT ISSUE .
ADMISSIBILITY
16 THE PARLIAMENT PUTS FORWARD TWO SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM THAT THE APPLICATION IS INADMISSIBLE : THE FIRST IS THAT THE APPLICATION IS PREMATURE AND THE SECOND IS THAT THE CONTESTED RESOLUTION IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF A DECISION .
17 AS REGARDS THE FIRST SUBMISSION, THE PARLIAMENT CONTENDS IN ITS DEFENCE THAT THE RESOLUTION AT ISSUE COULD NOT BE THE SUBJECT OF AN APPLICATION TO THE COURT BECAUSE IT WAS NOT, AT THE DATE OF THE APPLICATION, A DEFINITIVE ACT .
18 HOWEVER, IT APPEARS BOTH FROM THE REJOINDER AND FROM THE DEFENDANT ' S STATEMENTS DURING THE ORAL PROCEDURE THAT THIS SUBMISSION HAS BEEN ABANDONED . THERE IS THUS NO NEED TO CONSIDER IT .
19 AS REGARDS THE SECOND SUBMISSION, THE CONTESTED RESOLUTION CONSTITUTES, IN THE PARLIAMENT ' S VIEW, A SIMPLE INVITATION TO ACT ADDRESSED TO THE COMPETENT
ORGANS, IN THIS CASE THE BUREAU AND THE SECRETARY GENERAL OF PARLIAMENT, THE ONLY PURPOSE OF WHICH IS TO MAKE PROPOSALS AND, IF NECESSARY, TO GIVE A POLITICAL ORIENTATION TO ANY DECISIONS WHICH THOSE ORGANS MAY TAKE ; THE RESOLUTION IS NOT INTENDED TO DETERMINE THE CONTENT OF THOSE DECISIONS . IT IS THUS AN ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURE RELATING TO THE INTERNAL ORGANIZATION OF PARLIAMENT, AND DOES NOT OF ITSELF PRODUCE LEGAL EFFECTS ; IT IS THEREFORE OF THE SAME NATURE AS THE RESOLUTION WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE APPLICATION IN CASE 230/81 .
20 THE LUXEMBOURG GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT THE FACT THAT THE RESOLUTION IS IN THE NATURE OF A DECISION IS DEMONSTRATED BOTH ITS WORDING AND ITS CONTENT, INASMUCH AS IT CONTAINS SPECIFIC PROVISIONS DEALING IN PARTICULAR WITH THE DIVISION OF STAFF AND PROVIDING FOR PRECISE IMPLEMENTING MEASURES .
21 IT SHOULD BE POINTED OUT, WITHOUT ATTACHING EXCESSIVE IMPORTANCE TO THE USE OF THE VERB ' ' DECIDE ' '
IN THE TEXT OF THE RESOLUTION, THAT IT IS CLEAR FROM ITS VERY TERMS THAT THE RESOLUTION PROVIDES FOR SPECIFIC MEASURES, CONSISTING IN THE PERMANENT DIVISION OF THE SERVICES AND STAFF OF THE SECRETARIAT BETWEEN STRASBOURG AND BRUSSELS .
22 WHILST IT IS TRUE THAT THE PARLIAMENT, IN POINTS 2 AND 3 OF THE RESOLUTION AT ISSUE, INSTRUCTS THE BUREAU AND THE SECRETARY GENERAL TO INSTITUTE STRUCTURAL CHANGES AND PREPARE RE-ORGANIZATION MEASURES, IT DOES SO BECAUSE IT HAS DECIDED UPON THE CHANGES AND THE RE-ORGANIZATION AND REQUIRES THAT THE DIVISION DECIDED UPON SHOULD BE FOLLOWED BY IMPLEMENTING MEASURES .
23 CONSIDERATION OF THE CONTENT OF THE RESOLUTION AT ISSUE SHOWS THAT IT IS OF A SPECIFIC AND PRECISE DECISION-MAKING CHARACTER, PRODUCING LEGAL EFFECTS .
24 CONSEQUENTLY, THE SECOND SUBMISSION MUST BE REJECTED .
SUBSTANCE
25 THE LUXEMBOURG GOVERNMENT CONTENDS THAT THE PARLIAMENT, BY ADOPTING THE RESOLUTION AT ISSUE, EXCEEDED THE POWERS CONFERRED UPON IT BY THE TREATY . IT ARGUES THAT, WHILST THE PARLIAMENT HAS THE RIGHT TO TAKE APPROPRIATE MEASURES TO ENSURE THE SMOOTH FUNCTIONING OF ITS DEPARTMENTS, IT MUST NONE THE LESS RESPECT THE MEMBER STATES '
RIGHT TO FIX THE SEAT OF THE INSTITUTIONS, WHICH HAS BEEN EXERCISED BY DECISIONS TAKEN PROVISIONALLY, AS THE COURT RECOGNIZED IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 10 FEBRUARY 1983 IN CASE 230/81, CITED ABOVE . IN THAT JUDGMENT, THE COURT RULED THAT THE PARLIAMENT COULD ONLY MAINTAIN IN THE VARIOUS PLACES OF WORK THE INFRASTRUCTURE ESSENTIAL FOR ENSURING THAT IT WAS ABLE TO FULFIL THE TASKS WHICH WERE ENTRUSTED TO IT ; ANY OTHER DECISION TO TRANSFER ITS GENERAL SECRETARIAT, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, CONSTITUTED AN INFRINGEMENT OF ARTICLE 4 OF THE DECISION OF THE MEMBER STATES OF 8 APRIL 1965 ON THE PROVISIONAL LOCATION OF CERTAIN INSTITUTIONS AND DEPARTMENTS OF THE COMMUNITIES . HOWEVER, BY DECIDING TO ' ' DIVIDE UP STAFF OF THE SECRETARIAT IN THE MOST RATIONAL MANNER ' '
BETWEEN STRASBOURG AND BRUSSELS ALONE, TO THE EXCLUSION OF LUXEMBOURG, A MEASURE WHICH AFFECTS THE SECRETARIAT IN ITS ENTIRETY, THE PARLIAMENT HAS NOT RESPECTED THE LIMITS LAID DOWN BY THE ABOVEMENTIONED JUDGMENT OF THE COURT .
26 IN THE PARLIAMENT ' S VIEW, IT HAS, ' ' AS THE COURT CONFIRMED IN CASE 230/81 ( AT PARAGRAPH 39 OF ITS DECISION ) . . ., AN INHERENT RIGHT, INDEPENDENT OF THE POWERS OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES, TO DISCUSS ANY QUESTION CONCERNING THE COMMUNITIES, TO ADOPT RESOLUTIONS ON SUCH QUESTIONS . . . CONSEQUENTLY, THE MERE FACT THAT IT ADOPTS A RESOLUTION ON A QUESTION WHICH MIGHT CONCERN THE MEMBER STATES CANNOT CONSTITUTE AN INFRINGEMENT OF THE POWERS OF THE MEMBER STATES ' ' .
27 THE PARLIAMENT EMPHASIZES FURTHERMORE THAT THE CONTENT OF THE RESOLUTION AT ISSUE MUST BE EVALUATED IN THE LIGHT OF THE STATEMENTS MADE BY ITS PRESIDENT ON 10 MARCH AND 10 OCTOBER 1983, ACCORDING TO WHICH THE BUREAU AND THE GENERAL SECRETARIAT WERE TO CONSIDER THE ACTION TO BE TAKEN WITH REGARD TO THAT RESOLUTION WITH SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT IN THE ABOVEMENTIONED CASE AND TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE STAFF REGULATIONS ; IT MAINTAINS THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THOSE STATEMENTS, WHICH THE PARLIAMENT HAS ADOPTED, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE RESOLUTION AT ISSUE IS NOT INTENDED TO MODIFY THE EXISTING SITUATION IN A WAY WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT .
28 IT SHOULD BE POINTED OUT IN THE FIRST PLACE THAT, WHILST IT IS TRUE THAT THE RESOLUTION IN DISPUTE WAS, AFTER ITS ADOPTION, TO BE FORWARDED TO THE BUREAU AND THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE PARLIAMENT HAD STATED THAT THE COMPETENT ORGANS OF THE PARLIAMENT ' ' WOULD CONSIDER THE ACTION TO BE TAKEN ON THIS TEXT WITH SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES IN CASE 230/81 ' ', THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE PARLIAMENT, BY ADOPTING THE RESOLUTION, ON THE ONE HAND, ASSERTED ITS AUTHORITY TO TAKE THE MEASURES AT ISSUE AND, ON THE OTHER, INTENDED TO GIVE EFFECT TO ITS WISH TO DIVIDE UP ITS SERVICES AND ITS STAFF BETWEEN PLACES OTHER THAN LUXEMBOURG . IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE RESOLUTION WITH THE DECISION OF THE MEMBER STATES OF 8 APRIL 1965 MUST BE JUDGED ON ITS OWN MERITS .
29 IN THE SECOND PLACE, IT SHOULD BE BORNE IN MIND THAT ARTICLE 4 OF THE DECISION OF 8 APRIL 1965 ON THE PROVISIONAL LOCATION OF CERTAIN INSTITUTIONS AND DEPARTMENTS OF THE COMMUNITIES ( JOURNAL OFFICIEL NO 152, 13 . 7 . 1967, P . 18 ) PROVIDES THAT ' ' THE GENERAL SECRETARIAT OF THE ASSEMBLY AND ITS DEPARTMENTS SHALL REMAIN IN LUXEMBOURG ' ' . IT MUST ALSO BE EMPHASIZED THAT THE COURT, IN THE JUDGMENT CITED ABOVE, STATED THAT THE PARLIAMENT ' ' MUST BE IN A POSITION TO MAINTAIN IN THE VARIOUS PLACES OF WORK OUTSIDE THE PLACE WHERE ITS SECRETARIAT IS ESTABLISHED THE INFRASTRUCTURE ESSENTIAL FOR ENSURING THAT IT MAY FULFIL IN ALL THOSE PLACES THE TASKS WHICH ARE ENTRUSTED TO IT BY THE TREATIES ' ' .
30 THE COURT ADDED HOWEVER THAT THE TRANSFERS OF STAFF MUST NOT EXCEED THE LIMITS MENTIONED, SINCE ANY DECISION TO TRANSFER THE GENERAL SECRETARIAT OF THE PARLIAMENT OR OTHER DEPARTMENTS, WHOLLY OR PARTIALLY, DE JURE OR DE FACTO, WOULD CONSTITUTE AN INFRINGEMENT OF ARTICLE 4 OF THE DECISION OF 8 APRIL 1965 AND OF THE ASSURANCES WHICH THAT DECISION WAS INTENDED TO GIVE TO THE GRAND DUCHY OF LUXEMBOURG PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 37 OF THE TREATY ESTABLISHING A SINGLE COUNCIL AND A SINGLE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES .
31 CONSIDERATION OF THE CONTENT OF THE RESOLUTION AT ISSUE SHOWS THAT THOSE LIMITS HAVE NOT BEEN RESPECTED . THE RESOLUTION EXPRESSLY PROVIDES FOR THE DIVISION OF THE STAFF OF THE GENERAL SECRETARIAT BETWEEN STRASBOURG AND BRUSSELS AND FOR ITS PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT IN THOSE PLACES . IN ITS LAST RECITAL IT REFERS TO LUXEMBOURG AS BEING ' ' DEDICATED TO REMAINING THE SEAT OF THE JUDICIAL AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ' ' . THE SECRETARIAT WOULD THEREFORE NO LONGER BE BASED IN LUXEMBOURG .
32 IT MUST BE CONCLUDED THEREFORE THAT THE PARLIAMENT HAS EXCEEDED THE LIMITS OF ITS POWERS AND THAT, CONSEQUENTLY, THE RESOLUTION AT ISSUE MUST BE DECLARED VOID .
Decision on costs
COSTS
33 UNDER ARTICLE 69 ( 2 ) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE, THE UNSUCCESSFUL PARTY IS TO BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .
34 SINCE THE PARLIAMENT HAS BEEN UNSUCCESSFUL IN ITS SUBMISSIONS, IT MUST BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS .
Operative part
ON THOSE GROUNDS,
THE COURT
HEREBY :
1 . DECLARES THAT THE RESOLUTION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ON THE CONSEQUENCES TO BE DRAWN FROM THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ' S ADOPTION, ON 7 JULY 1981, OF THE ZAGARI REPORT ( OFFICIAL JOURNAL C 161, 20 . 6 . 1983, P . 155 ) IS VOID ;
2 . ORDERS THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT TO PAY THE COSTS .