CELEX: C1997/212/31
Language: en
Date: 1997-07-12 00:00:00
Title: Appeal brought on 15 May 1997 by L. B. Rasmussen against the judgment delivered on 18 March 1997 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-35/96 between L. B. Rasmussen and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-188/97 P)

12 . 7. 97             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 212/17
The applicant claims that the Court should :                               users in its area, if the purpose is to protect the supply
                                                                           undertaking which it owns itself from competition in
— declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed                  its area arising from use of the transit main ?
      period the measures necessary to comply with
      Commission Directive 93/71 /EEC ( ] ), the Federal               3 . If Questions 1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative:
      Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
      under the EC Treaty and under that Directive, and                    Is a local authority or a legally independent supply
                                                                           undertaking owned by it ( with which the local
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                                   authority has concluded an exclusive agreement for
                                                                           the use of its roads ) to be regarded, in relation to the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        local distribution of natural gas to end-users , as
                                                                           entrusted with the operation of a service of general
                                                                           economic interest within the meaning of Article 90 ( 2 )
The binding nature of the third paragraph of Article 189                    of the EC Treaty, where such distribution is not a task
and the first paragraph of Article 5 of the EC Treaty                       assigned by the State — and is equally open to purely
requires the Member States to transpose the provisions of                   private undertakings — where the local authority may
a Directive into internal law so that they produce their full
                                                                            nevertheless carry out the task as a local community
effect by the expiry of the period prescribed for that                      matter and where, in providing such supplies, that
purpose . That period came to an end on 3 August 1994                       local authority ( or its supply undertaking ) is — like
without Germany having enacted the necessary provisions .                   private undertakings — subject to State supervision
                                                                            and under a general obligation to provide connections
(') OJ No L 221 , 31 . 8 . 1993 , p. 27 .                                   and to supply gas ?
                                                                       4 . If Questions 1 , 2 and 3 are answered in the
                                                                            affirmative :
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the                                   When examining whether, pursuant to Article 90 ( 2 )
Bundesgerichtshof by order of that court of 11 March                        of the EC Treaty, agreements of the kind described are
1997 in the case of Wingas GmbH ( formerly Wintershall                      not subject to Article 85 thereof, is account to be
               Gas GmbH) against Stadt Detmold                              taken only of factors relating to ensuring a reliable
                                                                            and reasonably-priced local supply of natural gas, or
                           Case C-187/97 )                                  are factors relating to other matters in the public
                            ( 97/C 212/30 )                                 interest ( in particular environmental protection ) also
                                                                            to be taken into account ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 5 . If Questions 1 , 2 and 3 are answered in the affirmative
European Communities by order of the Kartellsenat                           and if, pursuant to the first sentence of Article 90 ( 2 )
 ( Cartel Chamber ) of the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court                 of the EC Treaty, the Treaty rules on competition are
 of Justice ) of 11 March 1997, received at the Court                       not to be applied:
 Registry on 15 May 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the
 case of Wingas GmbH ( formerly Wintershall Gas GmbH )
 against Stadt Detmold on the following questions:                           Are agreements of the kind described in Questions 1
                                                                             and 2 between local authorities and natural gas supply
                                                                             undertakings, eliminating competition in the local
 1 . Does Article 85 of the EC Treaty render invalid an                      supply of natural gas, to be deemed to affect the
       agreement under which a local authority grants a                      development of trade to an extent contrary to the
       supply undertaking, which is legally independent but                  interest of the Community ?
       owned by it, the exclusive right to use its public roads
       to lay and maintain mains for the direct supply of
       natural gas to end-users and thereby de facto
       eliminates competition in supply within its area, where
       that agreement is one of a number of similar
       (concession ) agreements which — also in conjunction
       with demarcation agreements between supply                       Appeal brought on 15 May 1997 by L. B. Rasmussen
       undertakings — partition off entire national supply              against the judgment delivered on 18 March 1997 by the
       markets from competition within the gas sector by                Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
       domestic or Community competitors ?                              European Communities in Case T-35/96 between L. B.
                                                                        Rasmussen and the Commission of the European
                                                                                                   Communities
  2 . In the circumstances set out in Question 1 , does
       Article 85 of the EC Treaty render invalid an                                           ( Case C-188/97 P)
       agreement concluded by a local authority with a                                            ( 97/C 212/31 )
       supply undertaking concerning the laying of a natural
       gas transit main through its municipal area, under
       which it obliges that supply undertaking not to use              An appeal against the judgment delivered on 18 March
        that main for the direct supply of natural gas to end­           1997 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
 ---pagebreak--- No C 212/ 18          EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   12 . 7 . 97
of the European Communities in Case T-35/96 between                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
L. B. Rasmussen and the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                — annul Council Regulation ( EC ) No 408/97 of
the European Communities on 15 May 1997 by L. B.                          24 February 1997 on the conclusion of an Agreement
Rasmussen, represented by Carlo Revoldini, of the                         on cooperation in the sea fisheries sector between the
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in                            European Community and the Islamic Republic of
Luxembourg at the Chambers of the latter, 180 Route de                    Mauritania and laying down provisions for its
Longwy.                                                                   implementation (*),
The appellant claims that the Court should:                           — order the Council to pay the costs .
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
     18 March 1997 in Case T-35/96 (') in its entirety,               — Infringement of Article 228 of the EC Treaty: the
     including the ruling on costs,                                       Council could not conclude the agreement with
                                                                          Mauritania without first seeking and obtaining the
— annul the Commission's decision to annul the vacancy                    European Parliament's assent in accordance with the
     notice procedure for post COM/116/94,                                second subparagraph of Article 228 ( 3 ) of the EC
                                                                          Treaty. The agreement in question has important
                                                                          budgetary implications on account of the fact that the
— annul the decision to reserve the post at issue in that                 financial compensation provided for Mauritania alone
     vacancy notice for nationals of new Member States,                   amounts     to  a   share   in excess  of 20 %    of the
     and to publish a notice of Open Competition COM/A/                   appropriations under budget heading B7-8 0 0
     929 ( Head of Unit V.F.3 ),                                          ( International fisheries agreements ) provided for each
                                                                          financial year concerned hitherto .
— order the Commission to pay compensation for non­                   — Breach of essential procedural requirements
     material damage,                                                     (consultation procedure not in compliance with the
                                                                          Treaty and no statement of reasons regarding the
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                  Commission 's proposed amendment of the legal basis ).
                                                                      O OJ No L 62, 4 . 3 . 1997, p. 1 .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Infringement of Articles 4, 5 , 7, 25 , 27, 29 and 45 of the
Staff Regulations, the principle of non-retroactivity, and of
the obligation to have due regard for the welfare of
officials, and misuse of powers, in that the Court of First           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
Instance gave faulty and insufficient reasoning in support            Première Instance de Namur by judgment of that court of
of provisions of the contested judgment and failed to reply           14 May 1997 in the case of Christelle Deliège v. ASBL
to arguments and pleas in law of the parties.                         Ligue Francophone de Judo et Disciplines Associées, ASBL
                                                                                Ligue Belge de Judo and François Pacquée
                                                                                             ( Case C-191/97)
 n OJ No C 131 , 26 . 4 . 1997, p . 14 .
                                                                                               ( 97/C 212/33 )
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de
                                                                      Premiere Instance de Namur ( Court of First Instance,
Action brought on 16 May 1997 by the European                         Namur) of 14 May 1997, which was received at the Court
   Parliament against the Council of the European Union               Registry on 20 May 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                      case of Christelle Deliege v. ASBL Ligue Francophone de
                         ( Case C-189/97 )
                                                                      Judo et Disciplines Associees, ASBL Ligue Beige de Judo
                           ( 97/C 212/32 )                            and Francois Pacquee on the following question :
                                                                      Whether or not it is contrary to the Treaty of Rome, in
 An action against the Council of the European Union was              particular Articles 59, 85 and 86 of the Treaty, to require
 brought before the Court of Justice of the European                  a professional or semi-professional athlete or a person
 Communities on 16 May 1997 by the European                           aspiring to professional or semi-professional activity to be
 Parliament, represented by Gregorio Garzon Clariana,                 authorized by his federation in order to be able to
 Jurisconsult, C. Pennera, Head of its Legal Service, and H.          compete in an international competition in which national
 Kriick, also of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an         teams are not taking part.
 address for service in Luxembourg at the European
 Parliament, Mail and Registry Service, Batiment Tour.