CELEX: C1998/397/41
Language: en
Date: 1998-12-19 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 29 October 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-388/98)

19.12.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 397/23
    (a) that, in order for a clause vesting jurisdiction in a                  possibly depend to some extent on the contents
         given court, as provided for in that article, to be                   of the bill of lading and/or the particular
         valid as between the parties, it is necessary in each                 circumstances of the case, such as the particular
         case for that clause to be formulated in such a                       state of knowledge of the third party concerned
         way that its wording alone makes it quite clear to                    or the fact that the latter has a long-standing
         (inter alia) persons other than the parties Ð and                     business relationship with the carrier and, if so,
         in particular to the court concerned Ð which                          can the third party be deemed to be aware of the
         court is to have jurisdiction to settle disputes                      particular circumstances of the case if the contents
         arising from the legal relationship in the context                    of the bill of lading do not make it sufficiently
         of which that clause is stipulated, or at least that                  clear to him that the clause in question is validly
         the identity of that court can be easily ascertained;                 binding on him?
         or
                                                                     4. If the answer to Question 3(a) is as set out in the
    (b) that Ð whether by virtue of a rule which has at                   second alternative postulated therein, which national
         all material times been aplicable or in                          law governs the decision as to whether the third party,
         consequence of or in connection with the                         upon acquiring the bill of lading, succeeded to the
         progressive relaxation of the rules arising from the             shipper's rights and obligations, and what is the
         successive amendments made to Article 17 of the                  position if the national law in question has not
         Brussels Convention, together with the case-law of               hitherto provided, either in its legislation or in its case-
         the Court of Justice concerning the circumstances                law, an answer to the question whether the third
         in which such a clause is to be regarded as having               party, upon acquiring the bill of lading, succeeds to
         been validly concluded Ð in order for such a                     the shipper's rights and obligations?
         clause to be valid, it is enough that the parties
         themselves clearly know, on the basis (inter alia)
         of the (further) circumstances of the case, which
         court is to have jurisdiction to settle such
         disputes?
                                                                     Action brought on 29 October 1998 by the Commission
2. Does Article 17 of the Brussels Convention also                   of the European Communities against the Hellenic
    govern the validity, as against a third party holding a                                     Republic
    bill of lading, of a clause which specifies as the forum                                 (Case C-388/98)
    having jurisdiction to settle disputes under this Bill of
    Lading' the courts of the place where the carrier has                                     (98/C 397/41)
    his principal place of business' and which is laid
    down in a bill of lading also containing an identity of
    carrier' clause, that bill of lading being issued for the        An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
    purposes of the carriage of goods, where (a) the                 before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
    shipper and one of the possible carriers are not                 on 29 Octrober 1998 by the Commission of the European
    established in a Contracting State and (b) the second            Communities, represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of
    possible carrier is indeed established in a Contracting          its Legal Service, with an address for service in
    State but it is not certain whether his principal place         Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of
    of business' is situated in that State or in a State which       its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
    is not a party to the Convention?
                                                                     The Commission claims that the Court should:
3. If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative:
                                                                     Ð declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and
    (a) Does the fact that the jurisdiction clause                        administrative provisions necessary to comply with
         contained in the bill of lading must be regarded as              Council Directive 94/67/EC (1) of 16 December 1994
         valid as between the carrier and the shipper mean                on the incineration of hazardous waste, or by not
         that it is also binding on any third party holding               communicating those measures to the Commission, the
         the bill of lading, or is that the position only as              Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
         regards a third party who, upon acquiring the bill               under that directive;
         of lading, succeeds by virtue of the applicable
         national law to the shipper's rights and
         obligations?                                                Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
    (b) Assuming that the jurisdiction clause contained in           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
         the bill of lading must be regarded as valid as
         between the carrier and the shipper, does the
         answer to the question whether it is also binding           The Member States are required by the binding character
         on a third party holding the bill of lading also            of the third paragraph of Article 189 and of Article 5 of
 ---pagebreak--- C 397/24              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       19.12.98
the EC Treaty to adopt the measures needed to transpose                           Ð in so far as may be necessary, annul the
directives into national law before the expiry of the period                          decision adopted by the Commission on
laid down for that purpose and to communicate those                                   3 February 1997 expressly rejecting the
measures immediately to the Commission. That period                                   appellant's complaint;
expired on 31 December 1996 without the Hellenic
Republic having communicated to the Commission
                                                                            (c) order the defendant to pay all the costs of both
provisions transposing the directive at issue into national
                                                                                  sets of proceedings.
law.
(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 34.                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       Ð Erroneous legal characterisation of the appellant's
                                                                            request, giving rise to incorrect legal consequences:
                                                                            the appellant's request, although based on
                                                                            Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations of officials, was
                                                                            intended to secure an assessment of his qualifications
Appeal brought on 2 November 1998 by Hans Gevaert
                                                                            with a view to a possible revision of his current
against the order made on 19 August 1998 by the First
                                                                            classification, not of his initial classification, the latter
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                            being neither directly nor indirectly in issue.
Communities in Case T-160/97 between Hans Gevaert
    and the Commission of the European Communities
                       (Case C-389/98 P)                               Ð (In the alternative) erroneous legal characterisation of
                                                                            the decision of 7 February 1996 (Administrative
                         (98/C 397/42)                                      Notices of 27.3.1996) by which the Commission
                                                                            amended its decision concerning the criteria
                                                                            applicable to appointment in grade and classification
An appeal against the order made on 19 August 1998 by                       in step upon recruitment; breach of the principle of
the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                     equality of treatment and infringement of Article 5(3)
European Communities in Case T-160/97 between Hans                          of the Staff Regulations of officials: to reserve the
Gevaert and the Commission of the European                                  benefit of the Commission's decision of 7 February
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                      1996 solely to officials appointed after it entered into
the European Communities on 2 November 1998 by Hans                         force, notwithstanding that those officials would in
Gevaert, represented by Nicolas LhoeÈst, of the Brussels                    the future be working in the same institution
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                       alongside other officials classified in accordance with
Offices of the Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de                             earlier (less favourable) criteria, would be wholly
Cessange.                                                                   contrary to the principle of euqality of treatment.
The appellant claims that the Court should:                            Ð Contradictory statements in the grounds of the
                                                                            judgment.
1.   declare the appeal admissible and well founded;                   (1) Order of 19.8.1998 in Case T-160/97 (OJ C 327, 24.10.1998,
                                                                           p. 24).
2.   consequently:
     (a) set aside the order made (1);
     (b) itself determine the proceedings and, allowing the            Action brought on 4 November 1998 by the Commission
          appellant's initial application:                             of the European Communities against the Hellenic
                                                                                                   Republic
          Ð rule that the appellant's request for                                              (Case C-391/98)
              consideration to be given to the possible
              application of Article 31(2) of the Staff                                         (98/C 397/43)
              Regulations,      with    a      view     to    his
              reclassification in grade with effect from
              5 October 1995, is admissible;                           An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
          Ð consequently,        annul     the    Commission's         on 4 November 1998 by the Commission of the European
              decision of 26 August 1996 rejecting the                 Communities, represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of
              appellant's request for an examination of the            its Legal Service, with an address for service in
              possible application of Article 31(2) of the             Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of
              Staff Regulations;                                       its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.