CELEX: C1995/286/11
Language: en
Date: 1995-10-28 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Dublin Circuit Family Court, by order of that court of 15 May 1995, in the case of Jackie Farrell against James Long (Case C-295/95)

28 . 10. 95         I EN |                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 286/5
30 August 1995 by the Commission of the European                       — refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for a
Communities, represented by Antonio Aresu, of its Legal                    fresh ruling on Mr Ojha 's claims for compensation for
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                   the non-material damage suffered by him as a result of
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                       the above decision ,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                       — order the Commission to pay the costs of these
The applicant claims that the Court should :                               proceedings, and of the proceedings before the Court of
                                                                           First Instance .
— declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
     period the laws, regulations and administrative                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     measures necessary to implement Council Directive
     92/109/EEC (') of 14 December 1992 on the                         1 . Error of law and reasoning as regards the extent of the
                                                                           Commission 's obligation to state reasons , in so far as the
     manufacture and the placing on the market of certain                  Court of First Instance held that sufficient reasons were
     substances used in the illicit manufacture of narcotic
                                                                           stated for the contested Commission decision
     drugs and psychotropic substances, the Italian Republic
     has failed to fulfil its obligations under Community                  ( paragraphs 59 to 62 of the judgment );
     law,                                                              2 . Error of law and reasoning in that the Court of First
                                                                           Instance held that the Commission had not infringed the
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .                            appellant's defence rights by failing to communicate to
                                                                           him the documents on which the contested decision was
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        based;
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, which states that a directive is         3 . Error of law and reasoning in that the Court of First
binding upon Member States as to the result to be achieved,                Instance upheld the Commission 's argument that the
entails for Member States an obligation to comply with the                 mere existence of complaints against the appellant,
time limits laid down in directives for their transposition . In           irrespective of whether they were well founded, justified
the present case, the prescribed period expired on 1 July                  the reassignment of the appellant to Brussels in the
1993 , at which time the Italian Republic had still not                    interests of the service;
enacted the provisions necessary to comply with Directive
92 / 109/EEC .                                                         4 . Error of law and reasoning in that the Court of First
                                                                           Instance accepted the Commission 's argument that the
(•) OJ No L 370 , 19 . 12 . 1992 , p . 76 .                                contested decision could be justified by the interests of
                                                                           the service, having regard to an allegedly tense situation
                                                                           within the service ;
                                                                       5 . Error of law and reasoning in that the Court of First
                                                                           Instance did not take the personal interests of the
Appeal lodged on 12 September 1995 by Girish Ojha                          appellant into account;
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities ( First Chamber ) of 6 July 1995 in               6 . Infringement of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations in
Case T-36/93 Girish Ojha v. Commission of the European                     that the Court of First Instance allowed documents not
                          Communities                                      forming part of an official 's personal file to be used
                      ( Case C-294/95 P)                                   against him.
                         ( 95/C 286/ 10 )
An appeal was lodged before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 12 September 1995 by Girish                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Dublin Circuit
Ojha , represented by E. H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of the                  Family Court, by order of that court of 15 May 1995 , in the
Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg                         case of Jackie Farrell against James Long
at the Chambers of L. Friden, Avenue Guillaume, against the
                                                                                               ( Case C-295 /95 )
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ( First Chamber ) of 6 July 1995 in Case                                             ( 95 /C 286/ 11
T-36/93 Girish Ojha v. Commission of the European
Communities .                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by an order of the Dublin Circuit
The appellant claims that the Court should :                           Family Court of 15 May 1995 , which was received at the
                                                                       Court Registry on 15 September 1995 , for a preliminary
— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of             ruling in the case of Jackie Farrell against James Long, on the
     the European Communities of 6 July 1995 in Case                   following question :
     T-36/93 ,
                                                                       Do the provisions of Article 5 ( 2 ) of the Convention on
— annul the Commission 's decision of 20 October 1992 ,                Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
     reassigning the appellant together with his post from the         Commercial Matters signed at Brussels on 27 September
      Commission delegation in Dacca to the seat of the                 1968 require as a condition precedent to the institution of
      Commission in Brussels,                                          maintenance proceedings in the Irish Courts by an applicant
 ---pagebreak--- No C 286/6             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28 . 10 . 95
who is domiciled in Ireland against a respondent who is                Communities on 15 September 1995 by the Commission of
domiciled in Belgium that the applicant has previously                 the European Communities, represented by Gotz zur
obtained in order for maintenance against the                          Hausen , Legal Adviser, with an address for service in
respondent ?                                                           Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of the
                                                                       Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254 , Kirchberg.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       1 . declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
Action brought on 15 September 1995 by the Commission                        time lmits all the measures necessary in order to
of the European Communities against the Federal Republic                     comply with Articles 3 and 5 of Council Directive
                             of Germany                                      78/659/EEC (') of 18 July 1978 on the quality of fresh
                        ( Case C-297/95 )                                    waters needing protection or improvement in order to
                           ( 95/C 286/ 12 )                                  support fish life and Articles 3 and 5 of Council
                                                                             Directive 79/923/EEC ( 2 ) of 30 October 1979 on the
                                                                             quality required of shellfish waters, the Federal Republic
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                        of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                          EC Treaty;
Communities on 15 September 1995 by the Commission of
the European Communities, represented by Gotz zur                      2 . order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
Hausen, Legal Adviser, with an address for service in                        costs .
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of the
Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254 , Kirchberg.
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                       The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
1 . declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed            C-297/95 (■'); the time limits expired on 20 July 1980 and
     time limit all the measures necessary in order to comply          5 November 1981 respectively . As regards in particular the
     with Council Directive 91 /271 /EEC of 21 May 1991                obligation to set values under Article 3 of each Directive, the
     concerning urban waste water treatment ( 1 ), the Federal         need for binding national rules arises from the fact that that
     Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations          measure is intended to improve the quality of edible fish and
     under the EC Treaty;                                              shellfish products and thereby indirectly to contribute to the
                                                                       protection of the health of humans .
2 . order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
     costs .                                                           (') OJ No L 222 , 14 . 8 . 1978 , p. 1 .
                                                                       ( 2 ) OJ No L 281 , 10 . 11 . 1979 , p. 47 .
                                                                       (') See page 6 of this Official Journal .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
It is apparent from the mandatory nature of directives, as
laid down by the third paragraph of Article 1 89 and the first
paragraph of Article 5 of the EC Treaty, that a Member State
to which a directive is addressed is obliged to transpose the
provisions of the directive into national law in such a way
that they take full practical effect from the expiry of the time       Action brought on 20 September 1995 by the Commission
limit for transposition . That time limit expired on 30 June                  of the European Communities against the United
 1993 , but the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to                                             Kingdom
adopt all the necessary national measures .                                                      ( Case C-300/95 )
                                                                                                   ( 95/C 286/ 14 )
 (') OJ No L 135 , 30 . 5 . 1991 , p . 40 .
                                                                       An action against the United Kingdom was brought before
                                                                       the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                       20 September 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities, represented by Mr Peter Oliver, member of
                                                                        the Legal Service , acting as agent, with an address for service
 Action brought on 15 September 1995 by the Commission                  in Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
 of the European Communities against the Federal Republic               Centre Wagner, Kirchberg.
                              of Germany
                         ( Case C-298/95 )
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                            ( 95/C 286/13 )
                                                                        1 . declare that in failing to take all the measures necessary
 An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                        to implement Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July
 brought before the Court of Justice of the European                          1985 concerning the approximation of the laws,