CELEX: C1998/137/25
Language: en
Date: 1998-05-02 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 11 March 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-66/98)

C 137/12             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     2.5.98
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the                             reviewing the decision of that authority or before the
Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Wien) (Higher Administrative                    Court of Justice of the European Communities when a
Court, Vienna) by order of that court of 18 December                    question is referred for a preliminary ruling, until legal
1997 in the case of Safet Eyüp v. Landesgeschäftsstelle des             protection is finally granted, to prevent serious and
Arbeitsmarktservice Vorarlberg (Regional office of the                  irreparable damage, and does the fact that a binding
               Vorarlberg employment service)                           decision as to whether the objective requirements are
                       (Case C-65/98)                                   met for freedom of movement under the association
                                                                        agreement is not taken immediately, but at a later date
                        (98/C 137/24)                                   in certain cases, constitute such damage?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European      Communities      by     an    order    of    the
Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Wien) of 18 December 1997,
which was received at the Court Registry on 5 March
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Safet Eyüp v.
Landesgeschäftsstelle des Arbeitsmarktservice Vorarlberg            Action brought on 11 March 1998 by the Commission of
on the following questions.                                           the European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                            (Case C-66/98)
1. Is the concept of members of the family in the first
                                                                                             (98/C 137/25)
    sentence of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the
    Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the
    development of the Association between the European
    Economic Community and Turkey to be interpreted as              An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
    meaning that the partner (in a relationship resembling          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
    marriage with no formal matrimonial bond) of a                  11 March 1998 by the Commission of the European
    Turkish worker also meets the relevant objective                Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its
    requirements?                                                   Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
                                                                    in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                    Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
2. If a partner is not to be regarded as a member of the
    family:
                                                                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
    is the second indent of the first sentence of Article 7 of
    Decision No 1/80 to be interpreted as meaning that, to
    meet the objective requirements, the formal                     1. declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
    matrimonial bond between the Turkish worker and the                 or administrative provisions necessary to comply with:
    family member must have lasted for five years without
    interruption, or is it permissible for periods during               Ð Commission Directive 93/18/EEC of 5 April 1993
    which there is a formal matrimonial bond with a                          adapting for the third time to technical progress
    partner to be interrupted by many years of                               Council      Directive    88/379/EEC      on      the
    cohabitation with the same partner?                                      approximation of the laws, regulations and
                                                                             administrative provisions of the Member States
3. Is the second indent of the first sentence of Article 7 of                relating to the classification, packaging and
    Decision No 1/80 to be interpreted as meaning that                       labelling of dangerous preparations (1),
    the formal dissolution of the matrimonial bond (for
    instance by divorce) with the Turkish worker
                                                                        Ð European Parliament and Council Directive 94/60/
    invalidates all previous periods of compliance, as a
                                                                             EC of 20 December 1994 amending for the 14th
    member of the family, with the conditions as to time?
                                                                             time Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation
                                                                             of the laws, regulations and administrative
4. Does Community law require that the (directly                             provisions of the Member States relating to
    effective) rights deriving from Articles 6 and 7 of                      restrictions on the marketing and use of certain
    Decision No 1/80 in a Member State for the group of                      dangerous substances and preparations (2),
    people designated therein be safeguarded by providing
    provisional legal protection in certain cases in the
    form of positive (prescriptive) interim measures?                   or by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the
                                                                        Italian Republic has failed to fultil its obligations
5. If question 4 is answered in the affirmative:                        within the meaning of the EC Treaty, and
    is there a need for positive (prescriptive) interim
    measures on the basis of Community law to the effect            2. order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
    that in certain cases (where an applicant invokes rights
    within the meaning of Articles 6 and 7 of Decision              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    No 1/80) the freedom of movement sought on the
    basis of the association agreement is provisionally
    granted for the duration of the proceedings before the          Within the meaning of Article 189 of the EC Treaty,
    competent administrative authority, before the court            according to which a directive is to be binding, as to the
 ---pagebreak--- 2.5.98                EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 137/13
result to be achieved, on each Member State to which it is                  Removal from the register of C-261/97 (1)
addressed, Member States are required to observe the time
                                                                                           (98/C 137/26)
limits laid down in directives for their transposition. That
time limit expired on 1 July 1994 in respect of Directive
93/18/EEC and on 20 December 1994 in respect of
Directive 94/60/EC without the Italian Republic having             By order of 11 February 1998 the President of the Court
brought into force the necessary provisions in order to            of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
comply therewith.                                                  removal from the register of Case C-261/97 (reference for
                                                                   a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel, Douai): Karl
(1) OJ L 104, 29.4.1993, p. 46.                                    Heinz Baumann v. Urssaf Lille.
(2) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 1.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 271, 6.9.1997.
                                                  COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          4. orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                      of 17 March 1998
                                                                   (1) OJ C 333, 9.12.1995.
in Case T-183/95: Giuseppe Carraro v. Commission of the
                  European Communities (1)
(Officials Ð Article 24 of the Staff Regulations Ð Duty to
provide assistance Ð Decision implicitly rejecting a
                            request)
                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                        (98/C 137/27)
                                                                                         of 19 March 1998
                                                                   in Case T-74/96: Georges Tzoanos v. Commission of the
               (Language of the case: Italian)                                       European Communities (1)
                                                                   (Officials Ð Decision ordering removal from post Ð
In Case T-183/95: Giuseppe Carraro, an official of the             Action for annulment Ð Concurrent disciplinary
Commission of the European Communities, assigned to                proceedings and criminal proceedings Ð Errors of
the Joint Research Centre, Ispra, residing at Ispra (Italy),       assessment Ð Right to a fair hearing Ð Articles 12, 13,
represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, advocate with a right          14, 21 and 86 of the Staff Regulations Ð Principle of
of audience before the Italian Court of Cassation, with an         proportionality Ð Principle of equal treatment Ð Misuse
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                                         of powers)
Ernest Arendt, 8-10 rue Mathias Hardt, v. Commission of                                    (98/C 137/28)
the European Communities (Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia) Ð
application, first, for annulment of the decision of the
Commission implicitly rejecting the request for assistance                        (Language of the case: French)
submitted by the applicant on 28 July 1994 and, second,
for compensation Ð the Court of First Instance (Third              In Case T-74/96: Georges Tzoanos, a former official of the
Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President, and C. P. BrieÈt       Commission of the European Communities, residing in
and A. Potocki, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator,        Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 March                with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
1998, in which it:                                                 Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2, rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v.
                                                                   Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                   Gianluigi Valsesia, Denis Waelbroeck and Olivier
1. annuls the decision of the Commission implicitly                Speltdoorn) Ð application for annulment of the decision
    rejecting the request for assistance submitted by the          of the Commission of 22 June 1995 removing the
    applicant on 28 July 1994;                                     applicant from his post without loss of entitlement to a
                                                                   retirement pension and for annulment of the decision of
                                                                   19 February 1996 expressly rejecting the complaint lodged
2. orders the Commission to pay the applicant the token            by the applicant on 21 September 1995 against the
    sum of ECU 1 by way of compensation for the non-               decision of 22 June 1995 Ð the Court of First Instance
    material damage suffered;                                      (Fourth Chamber), composed of: P. Lindh, President, and
                                                                   K. Lenaerts and J. D. Cooke, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal
                                                                   Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
3. dismisses the remainder of the action;                          19 March 1998, in which it: