1.

One year after the Court's judgment on the places of work of the European Parliament, given on 10 February 1983 (Case 230/81, Luxembourg ν Parliament, [1983] ECR 255), the Court is once again called upon to rule on that question. As on the previous occasion, it is the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg which asks the Court to do so. That State has instituted proceedings against a measure adopted by the Parliament which confirms the wish of that institution to change its staff's place of work so as to improve the functioning of the institution. In this Opinion I shall evaluate that measure from a legal point of view. However, I am compelled to point out that it has a comprehensible and quite serious political basis; the persistent inertia of the governments in carrying out their obligation to determine the seat of the Parliament and the growing organizational difficulties that this unwillingness to act causes. On 9 March 1983, Mr von Hassel, a Member of the European Parliament, submitted a motion for a resolution on the consequences to be drawn from a measure — better known as the “Zagari Report” — which the Parliament had adopted on 7 July 1981. Dealing with well known facts, the motion begins by stating that all part-sessions are held in Strasbourg, whereas the meetings of the committees and political groups are normally held in Brussels (see letters D and E). On the basis of those premises, it then decides “to proceed to divide up staff of the Secretariat ... between the places of work”, basing permanently in Strasbourg the “services that are mainly concerned with the functioning of part sessions” and basing in Brussels those “that are mainly concerned with the functioning of the committees”. It then instructs “the Bureau to institute ... structural changes that will permit greater flexibility in the work rate” and “instructs the Secretary General to prepare without delay” the reorganization measures required by the resolution (Document PE 83.731). The von Hassel motion was submitted under the special procedure provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Procedure adopted by the Parliament in 1981, which provides for the entry of the motion in a special register for a certain period of time (two months), during which any member may sign it. In the present case, the motion obtained 238 signatures, which represents more than half the Members of the Parliament. The motion was then forwarded to the President of the Parliament. On 10 March 1983, he stated that the motion would be posted on the notice boards for a period of at least 30 days before being sent to the relevant bodies. The latter, namely the Bureau and the Secretary General, were then to take steps to give effect to it with specific reference to the aforementioned judgment of 10 February 1983. The motion was thus posted on the notice boards and obtained four further signatures, while one Member who had signed withdrew his signature. However, because reservations were expressed about the admissibility of the motion under the procedure which had been followed, the President, by letters of 21 and 23 March 1983, asked the Committee on the Rules of Procedure and Petitions to give an opinion as to the meaning of Rule 49. On the following 20 May, the President of the plenary sitting informed the Assembly that the motion had been forwarded to the Bureau and to the Secretary General while awaiting the opinion of the committee. On 2 June 1983, the latter informed the President that, in its opinion, the procedure under Rule 49 was not applicable to the motion in question. At the sitting on 9 June, however, the Parliament approved a request whose object was to obtain a new opinion from the committee on the meaning of Rule 49. Finally, at the plenary sitting on 10 October 1983, the President informed the Assembly that the reservations concerning the admissibility of Mr von Hassels's resolution no longer held and confirmed that the relevant bodies would consider the action to be taken on the text with specific reference to the judgment of 10 February 1983 and to the provisions of the Staff Regulations. Up to the present moment, however, those bodies have taken no measures to put it into effect. By an application of 10 June 1983, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg instituted proceedings before the Court against the Parliament, seeking a declaration that the contested resolution is null and void for lack of competence.