CELEX: C1997/331/24
Language: en
Date: 1997-11-01 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 16 September 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany (Case C-320/97)

1 . 11 . 97             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 331 /13
Appeal brought on 12 September 1997 by the European                   Action brought on 16 September 1997 by the Commission
Parliament against the judgment delivered on 10 July                  of the European Communities against the Federal
1997 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance                                  Republic of Germany
of the European Communities in Case T-36/96 between                                          ( Case C-320/97)
        Giuliana Gaspari and the European Parliament
                         Case C-3 16/97 P)                                                     ( 97/C 331/24 )
                          ( 97/C 331/23 )
                                                                      An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                      brought before the Court of Justice on 16 September 1997
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 10 July 1997              by the Commission of the European Communities,
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the            represented by Klaus-Dieter Borchardt, of its Legal
European Communities in Case T-36/96 between Giuliana                 Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Gaspari and the European Parliament was brought on                    Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
12 September 1997 by Manfred Peter, Head of Division in               also of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
the Legal Service, and Antonio Caiola, of the same                    Kirchberg.
Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the General Secretariat of the European
Parliament, Kirchberg.                                                The Commission claims that the Court should :
The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:
                                                                      1 . declare that, by failing to adopt the measures
                                                                          necessary to comply with Directive 94/3 7/EC (')
— annul the contested judgment delivered by the Court                     within the period prescribed, the Federal Republic of
     of First Instance on 10 July 1997 in Case T-36/96                    Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
     Giuliana Gaspari v. European Parliament ('),                         EC Treaty and that Directive,
— make the form of order sought by the Parliament                     2 . order the defendant to pay the costs.
     before the Court of First Instance, namely:
     — declare the application unfounded,                             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     — order the applicant to pay the costs,
                                                                      The binding character of the third paragraph of Article 189
                                                                      and the first paragraph of Article 5 of the Treaty requires
— as to the costs before the Court of Justice, to make                Member States to transpose directives addressed to them
     such an order as seems equitable to the Court.                   into national law so that they take full effect before the
                                                                      period prescribed for transposition expires. Although that
                                                                      time-limit expired on 31 July 1995, the Federal Republic
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   of Germany had not adopted the necessary provisions.
Breach of Community law:                                              H OJ L 194, 29 . 7. 1994, p . 65 .
— The application should have been dismissed as
     inadmissible since the pleas in law raised were not put
     forward in the prior administrative complaint.
— The Court of First Instance wrongly considered that                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Stockholms
     the contested measure did not contain a statement of             Tingsratt by order of that court of 15 September 1997 in
     reasons or a sufficient statement of reasons . It is for         the case of Ulla-Brith Andersson and Susanne Wakeras­
     the official concerned to show that the opinion of the                          Andersson v. the Swedish State
     examining doctor is not justified. If that were not the                                 ( Case C-321/97)
     case, the entire system laid down in Article 59 ( 1 ) of
     the Staff Regulations would no longer make sense .                                        ( 97/C 331 /25 )
— The Court of First Instance wrongly raised of its own
     motion a plea based on a supposed breach of the                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     rights of the defense .                                          European Communities by order of the Stockholms
                                                                      Tingsratt ( District Court, Stockholm ) of 15 September
                                                                      1997, received at the Court Registry on 17 September
(>) OJ C 252, 16 . 8 . 1997, p. 29 .
                                                                      1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ulla-Brith
                                                                      Andersson     and    Susanne       Wakeras-Andersson   v.  the
                                                                      Swedish State on the following questions: