CELEX: C1999/071/36
Language: en
Date: 1999-03-13 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 18 January 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic (Case C-12/99)

13.3.1999             EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 71/21
Action brought on 18 January 1999 by the Commission of            Appeal brought on 18 January 1999 by TEAM Srl,
the European Communities against the Portuguese                   established in Rome, against the judgment delivered on
                            Republic                              29 October 1998 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of
                                                                  First Instance of the European Communities in Case
                       (Case C-12/99)                             T-13/96 between TEAM Srl and the Commission of the
                                                                                     European Communities
                       (1999/C 71/36)
                                                                                        (Case C-13/99 P)
                                                                                         (1999/C 71/37)
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought             An appeal against the judgment delivered on 29 October
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities           1998 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First
on 18 January 1999 by the Commission of the European              Instance of the European Communities in Case T-13/96
Communities, represented by Dimitrios Gouloussis and              between TEAM Srl and the Commission of the European
António Caeiros, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent,           Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of        the European Communities on 18 January 1999 by TEAM
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner             Srl, represented by Antonio Tizzano and Gian Michele
Centre, Kirchberg.                                                Roberti, with an address for service at the offices of
                                                                  Studio Legale Tizzano, 36 Place du Grand Sablon, 1000
                                                                  Brussels.
                                                                  The appellant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                  Ð set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 29 October
                                                                      1998 in Case T-13/96;
1. Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
    the laws, regulations and administrative provisions           Ð order the Commission to pay the costs of the present
    necessary to comply with Council Directive                        proceedings.
    94/45/EC (1) of 22 September 1994 on the
    establishment of a European Works Council or a                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    procedure in Community-scale undertakings and
    Community-scale groups of undertakings for the                1. On 11 May 1998 the Court of First Instance adopted
    purposes of informing and consulting employees                    a measure of organisation of procedure in the form of
    within the period prescribed by Article 14(1) thereof,            a request to the Commission to produce copies of the
    the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its                  documents relating to the contested tender procedure.
    obligations under the first paragraph of Article 5 and            That measure had in fact been applied for by the
    the third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty               appellant as early as 26 January 1996, when it first
    as well as under Article 14(1) of Directive 94/45/EC;             brought the action, that is to say, over two years
    and                                                               previously. In addition, the measure in question was
                                                                      adopted six months after the closure of the written
                                                                      procedure, in the context of the oral hearing. In the
                                                                      appellant's view, that manner of proceeding constitutes
                                                                      a clear violation of the rights of the defence, since the
2. Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                      delay attending the adoption of the measure was
                                                                      excessive and unjustified.
                                                                  2. The Court of First Instance refused to take into
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   consideration crucial documents submitted by the
                                                                      appellant during the course of the hearing. According
                                                                      to the appellant, the Court of First Instance distorted'
                                                                      the evidence submitted by the appellant, inasmuch as
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third                   it stated that that evidence was irrelevant' for the
paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of                   purposes of determining the dispute. Moreover, the
Article 5 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to                  Court of First Instance provided no reasons for its
adopt the measures necessary to transpose directives                  decision.
addressed to them into their domestic law before the
expiry of the period prescribed for doing so. That period         3. In seeking to ascertain and characterise the reparable
expired on 22 September 1996 without Portugal having                  damage, the Court of First Instance completely
brought into force the necessary provisions.                          distorted the nature of the damage as claimed by the
                                                                      appellant. In addition, the Court of First Instance
                                                                      manifestly failed to provide a statement of reasons,
(1) OJ L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64.                                       inasmuch as it did not furnish a clear explanation of
                                                                      its reasons for completely disregarding the legal
                                                                      presentation by the appellant of its case,
                                                                      notwithstanding that this was clearly set out and fully
                                                                      argued by the latter.