CELEX: C1999/020/47
Language: en
Date: 1999-01-23 00:00:00
Title: Removal from the register of Case C-278/97

C 20/28                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                23.1.1999
     judgment of the Court of Justice delivered in the                 Action brought on 3 December 1998 by the Commission
     context of a reference for a preliminary ruling (2)               of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
     rejecting grounds of alleged invalidity does not                                             Luxembourg
     constitute in the strict sense a declaration that the                                     (Case C-438/98)
     Community measure is valid Ð that is, compatible
     with the EC Treaty Ð but rather, where there is no                                         (1999/C 20/46)
     declaration of invalidity, merely an indication by the
     Court that its examination has disclosed no factor of
     such a kind as to affect the validity' of the measure,            An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
     from which it follows that there is nothing to prevent            brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     it from being declared invalid in a future judgment on            Communities on 3 December 1998 by the Commission of
     other grounds.                                                    the European Communities, represented by Antonio
                                                                       Aresu, of its Legal Service, and Nicola Yerrell, a national
                                                                       civil servant on secondment to its Legal Service, acting as
                                                                       Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Ð Infringement of the rights of the defence and the right              Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
     to obtain effective legal protection owing to the failure         Kirchberg.
     by the Court of First Instance sufficiently to take into
     consideration, and in any event sufficiently to                   The Commission of the European Communities claims
     examine, each and every one of the appellant's claims             that the Court should:
     in the light of the new information presented to it
     after the written stage; manifest distortion of such
     evidence: in its Decisions 97/513/EC (3), 97/515/EC (4)           (a) declare that, by failing to adopt and/or to
     and 97/516/EC (5), the Commission considered that an                    communicate to the Commission the laws,
     alternative measure to protect the interests of goods in                regulations and administrative measures necessary in
     transit upon the entry into force of a ban on imports                   order to comply with Council Directive 96/97/EC of
     requiring such goods to undergo special analyses did                    20 December 1996 amending Directive 86/378/EEC
     not involve any risk to public health.                                  on the implementation of the principle of equal
                                                                             treatment for men and women in occupational social
                                                                             security schemes (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
                                                                             has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC
Ð Breach of essential procedural requirements: at the                        Treaty; and
     sitting of the full Court of 11 January 1996, the case
     was assigned to a Chamber of five judges. The order
                                                                       (b) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the
     of 2 May 1996 granting leave for the plea of
                                                                             costs.
     inadmissibility brought by the Commission to be
     considered at the same time as the substance of the
     case was adopted by the Second Chamber, Extended                  The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
     Composition. The appellant expressed surprise at the              Case C-429/98 (2); the time-limit prescribed by the
     application for the case to be assigned to a Chamber              directive expired on 1 July 1997.
     composed of three judges, but did not object. The
     appellant considers that the Second Chamber,
                                                                       (1) OJ L 46, 17.2.1997, p. 20.
     composed of three judges, is not competent to adopt
                                                                       (2) See page 23 of this Official Journal.
     the order appealed against, by which the applications
     for annulment and compensation were dismissed and
     the proceedings thus deemed closed.
(1) OJ C 229, 2.9.1995, p. 24.
(2) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 July 1997, in Case
    C-183/95 Affish [1997] ECR I-4315.
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-278/97 (1)
(3) Commission Decision 97/513/EC of 30 July 1997 concerning                                    (1999/C 20/47)
    certain protective measures with regard to certain fishery
    products originating in Bangladesh (OJ L 214, 6.8.1997,
    p. 46).
(4) Commission Decision 97/515/EC of 1 August 1997 concerning          By order of 7 October 1998, the President of the Court of
    certain protective measures with regard to certain fishery         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
    products originating in India (OJ L 214, 6.8.1997, p. 52).         from the register of Case C-278/97 (Reference for a
(5) Commission Decision 97/516/EC of 1 August 1997 concerning          preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof):
    certain protective measures with regard to certain fishery         Wrangler Germany GmbH v. Metro Selbstbedienungs-
    products originating in Madagascar (OJ L 214, 6.8.1997,            Groûhandel GmbH.
    p. 53).
                                                                       (1) OJ C 295, 27.9.1997.