CELEX: C1999/136/10
Language: en
Date: 1999-05-15 00:00:00
Title: Case C-57/99 P: Appeal brought on 19 February 1999 by Karola Gluiber against the order made on 21 December 1998 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-122/98 Karola Gluiber versus Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities

15.5.1999             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 136/7
Appeal brought on 19 February 1999 by Karola Gluiber                    Pleas in law and main arguments
against the order made on 21 December 1998 by the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                  — The Court of First Instance wrongly declared that the
Communities in Case T-122/98 Karola Gluiber versus                          claim, based on Article 173 of the EC Treaty and Article
Council of the European Union and Commission of the                         215 of the EC Treaty in conjunction with Article 5 of the
                    European Communities                                    Treaty on European Union, was inadmissible on the
                                                                            ground that the contested acts fell within the competence
                                                                            of a Member State. In the case of a community based on
                        (Case C-57/99 P)                                    law, such as the European Union, it is inappropriate to
                                                                            draw a distinction between acts of a Member State and acts
                                                                            of the Community. Directives constitute legal acts which
                        (1999/C 136/10)                                     impose on the Member States a duty to transpose the
                                                                            objectives fixed by the Commission or the Council. In the
An appeal against the order made on 21 December 1998 by                     event of failure properly to transpose a directive, it is
the first Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European            incumbent upon the Court of Justice to intervene with a
Communities in Case T-122/98 Karola Gluiber versus Council                  view to rectifying the situation.
of the European Union and Commission of the European                    — Breach of the principle of the right to a fair hearing: the
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                  contested order was made without the application having
European Communties on 19 February 1999 by Karola                           been notified to the defendant. In addition, that order
Gluiber, represented by Dieter Rogalla, Rechtsanwalt, with an               was made without any oral procedure taking place in
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs                 accordance with Article 55 of the Rules of Procedure.
Decker & Braun, Avenue Marie-Thérèse, L-2013 Luxembourg.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
— set aside the order made by the Court of First Instance of            Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
    the European Communities on 21 December 1998 in Case                Bremen by order of 2 February 1999 in the case of
    T-122/98;                                                                     D. Wandel GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bremen
— declare null and void the individual measures which                                            (Case C-66/99)
    unlawfully discriminate against the appellant on the
    ground of her sex;                                                                          (1999/C 136/11)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
— order the respondent to retract and terminate, in accord-             European Communities by order of 2 February 1999 from the
    ance with the rules laid down by the Treaty on European             Second Chamber of the Finanzgericht Bremen (Finance Court,
    Union, the discriminatory measures taken against the                Bremen), which was received at the Court Registry on 25 Feb-
    appellant by the Federal Republic of Germany, as a Member           ruary 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of D. Wandel
    State of the Community, and by its federal organs;                  GmbH v Hauptzollamt Bremen on the following questions:
— order the respondent to pay to the appellant the total sum            1. Is Article 201(1)(a), in conjunction with Article 201(2),
    of DEM 18 700,32, being the expense incurred by the                     of the Council Regulation (EEC) of 12 October 1992
    appellant in the proceedings brought by her to no avail                 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302,
    before the German courts;                                               19.10.1992, p. 1) (‘the Customs Code’) to be construed as
                                                                            meaning that a customs debt on importation is incurred
                                                                            once a customs declaration for the release of non-
— order the respondent to pay the costs of the present                      Community goods into free circulation satisfying the
    proceedings;                                                            requirements of Article 62 of the Customs Code has
                                                                            been accepted by the competent customs office and that
— alternatively, stay the proceedings pursuant to Article                   acceptance is evidenced by the attachment of a customs
    82a(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice             registration stamp?
    pending receipt of a preliminary ruling by the European
    Court of Human Rights concerning the finding that the               2. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative:
    incomplete transposition into German law of Council                     Is Article 75 of the Customs Code to be construed as
    Directive 76/207/EEC infringes                                          meaning that the customs office which has accepted such
                                                                            a customs declaration is entitled to treat the declaration as
    (a) Article 6 of the European Convention on Human                       invalid or to invalidate it without a request by the declarant
         Rights (‘ECHR’);                                                   to that end, with the result that a customs debt incurred
                                                                            under Article 201(1)(a) of the Customs Code is deemed
                                                                            not to have been incurred or is extinguished under the first
    (b) article 11 of the ECHR;                                             indent of Article 233(c) of the Customs Code, if the
                                                                            declared goods cannot be released to the declarant because
    (c) article 14 of the ECHR; and                                         they were removed, before the customs examination
                                                                            ordered was carried out, from their prescribed place of
                                                                            storage and from the area for which the customs office is
    (d) article 50 of the ECHR.                                             responsible?