CELEX: C1998/151/07
Language: en
Date: 1998-05-16 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 27 February 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic (Case C-62/98)

16.5.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 151/5
adopt the measures necessary to transpose directives               (EEC) No 4055/86 and, in particular to Article 4(1). They
addressed to them into their domestic law before the               should therefore be adjusted in order to comply with the
expiry of the period prescribed for doing so. That period,         Regulation.
which is laid down in Article 4 of the Directive, expired
on 8 August 1995 without the Grand Duchy of                        (1) OJ L 378, 31.12.1986, p. 1.
Luxembourg having brought into force the necessary
provisions.
(1) OJ L 268, 19.10.1994, p. 15.
                                                                   Appeal brought on 3 March 1998 by Odette Nicos
                                                                   Petrides Co. Inc. against the judgment delivered on
                                                                   17 December 1997 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court
                                                                   of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
                                                                   T-152/95 between Odette Nicos Petrides Co. Inc. and the
Action brought on 27 February 1998 by the Commission                        Commission of the European Communities
of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                                                                         (Case C-64/98 P)
                           Republic
                       (Case C-62/98)                                                      (98/C 151/08)
                        (98/C 151/07)
                                                                   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 17 December
                                                                   1997 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities in Case T-152/95
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
                                                                   between Odette Nicos Petrides Co. Inc. and the
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities was brought
on 27 February 1998 by the Commission of the European
                                                                   before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
Communities, represented by António Caeiro, Principal
                                                                   on 3 March 1998 by Odette Nicos Petrides Co. Inc.,
Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service
                                                                   represented by Nikolaos Vassilakakis and Evangelos
in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                   Vassilakakis, of the Thessalonica Bar, and Evangelia
of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                   Pallioudi, of the Kavala Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                   Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos Zeyen, 56Ð58
                                                                   Rue Charles Martel.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   The appellant claims that the Court should:
1. declare that, by failing to denounce or adjust the
     agreements with Senegal, Cape Verde, Angola and Sao
                                                                   Ð grant the application for review and quash the
     Tome and Principe, so as to provide for fair, free and
                                                                       judgment (1),
     non-discriminatory access by all Community nationals
     to the cargo-shares due to Portugal, as provided for in
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December            Ð grant all the claims for damages in the action (2),
     1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide
     services to maritime transport between Member States
     and between Member States and third countries (1),            Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of the
     the Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations          proceedings before both the Court of First Instance
     under Articles 3 and 4(1) thereof and the EC Treaty,              and the Court of Justice.
                                                                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
2. order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                   Ð Insufficient reasoning in the contested judgment on
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    questions which have a substantial bearing on the
                                                                       principle of proportionality,
The agreements between Portugal and the States referred            Ð manifestly incorrect application of the principle of
to in the application reserve the transport of cargo                   proportionality to the actual events in the second
between the parties to vessels flying the flag of one of the           tendering procedure,
parties or to vessels operated by persons or undertakings
having the nationality of one of the parties. Thus, vessels
operated by nationals of others are excluded from the              Ð distortion and misinterpretation of documentary
trade covered by the agreements. The Commission                        evidence by the Court of First Instance in that it
considers them to be cargo-sharing arrangements which                  manifestly gave those documents a different meaning
are subject to the provisions and obligations of Regulation            from their actual one when considering the principle