CELEX: C2000/233/42
Language: en
Date: 2000-08-12 00:00:00
Title: Case C-238/00 P: Appeal brought on 14 June 2000 by Peter Reichert against the judgment delivered on 13 April 2000 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (single judge) in Case T-18/98 between Peter Reichert and the European Parliament

C 233/22               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       12.8.2000
      —     Commission Directive 98/67/EC of 7 September               Pleas in law and main arguments
            1998 amending Directives 80/511/EEC, 82/475/
            EEC, 91/357/EEC and Council Directive 96/25/EC             The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
            and repealing Directive 92/87/EEC (2),                     advanced in Case C-236/00 (2); the period for transposition
                                                                       expired on 30 June 1998.
      the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to comply
      with its obligations under Article 10 of Directive
      98/51/EC and Article 7 of Directive 98/67/EC;                    (1) OJ L 46 of 17.2.1997, p. 25.
                                                                       (2) See page 21 of this Official Journal.
—     order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph          Appeal brought on 14 June 2000 by Peter Reichert against
of Article 249 and the first paragraph of Article 10 EC obliges        the judgment delivered on 13 April 2000 by the Court of
the Member States to adopt the measures necessary in order             First Instance of the European Communities (single judge)
to transpose directives into their national legal order within         in Case T-18/98 between Peter Reichert and the European
the time-limit prescribed for so doing. The time-limit in                                           Parliament
question expired on 31 December 1998 but the Grand Duchy
of Luxembourg has not adopted the necessary measures.                                          (Case C-238/00 P)
                                                                                                (2000/C 233/42)
(1) OJ L 208 of 24.7.1998, p. 43.
(2) OJ L 261 of 24.9.1998, p. 10.
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 April 2000
                                                                       by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                       (single judge) in Case T-18/98 between Peter Reichert and the
                                                                       European Parliament was brought before the Court of Justice
                                                                       of the European Communities on 14 June 2000 by Peter
                                                                       Reichert, represented by Dieter Rogalla, Rechtsanwalt, of
                                                                       Eicklöhken 19, D-45549 Sprockhövel (Germany), with an
                                                                       address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Decker,
Action brought on 14 June 2000 by the Commission of                    Braun & Wagner, P.O. Box 335, L-2013 Luxembourg.
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                          Luxembourg                                   The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       —     annul the judgment delivered on 13 April 2000 by the
                        (Case C-237/00)                                      Court of First Instance in Case T-18/98;
                        (2000/C 233/41)                                —     itself determine the appellant’s application for the grant
                                                                             of the expatriation allowance, or alternatively refer the
                                                                             case back to the Court of First Instance for re-examination
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                          and a fresh decision;
brought before the Court of Justice on 14 June 2000 by the
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                 —     order the European Parliament, as respondent, to pay the
Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an               costs of the entire proceedings.
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.                                                             Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       —     The appellant’s employment as a correspondent in the
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                       Brussels press office of the VWD, which was taken into
the Court should:                                                            consideration in the contested judgment as a ground for
                                                                             the refusal of the expatriation allowance, lasted only
—     declare that, by failing to adopt or notify within the                 20 months and thus does not in any way constitute a
      prescribed time-limit the laws, regulations and admi-                  substantial part of the 66-month period referred to in
      nistrative measures necessary in order to comply with                  Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of
      Council Directive 96/98/EC of 20 December 1996 on                      officials.
      marine equipment (1), the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
      has failed to comply with its obligations under Article 20       —     The Court of First Instance failed to give any consideration
      of that directive and under the provisions of the EC                   to the professional position occupied by the appellant
      Treaty;                                                                during the remaining period (namely, that of Brussels
                                                                             correspondent for the publication ‘Wirtschaftswoche’, the
—     order the Luxembourg Government to pay the costs.                      editorial headquarters of which is situated in Düsseldorf).
 ---pagebreak--- 12.8.2000              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 233/23
—     The Court of First Instance further failed to consider the       The applicant claims that the Court should:
      question as to where the appellant maintained his family
      residence during the relevant period.
                                                                       —      Declare that, by maintaining in force the provisions
                                                                              contained in Articles 78(2) and 120(1) of the Regulations
                                                                              on Port Authorities Registration, relating to the registra-
                                                                              tion of vessels and the right to fly the Portuguese
                                                                              flag, reserving that right to Portuguese nationals, the
                                                                              Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                              under Article 6 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court
                                                                              Article 12 EC) and Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after
of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division
                                                                              amendment, Article 43 EC);
(Divisional Court), by order of that court of 23 May 2000,
in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State for
   Trade and Industry, Ex parte: Trades Union Congress                 —      Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                         (Case C-243/00)
                         (2000/C 233/43)                               Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
                                                                       It is apparent from the wording of the abovementioned articles
Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Divisional
                                                                       of the Regulamento Geral das Capitanias (General Regulation
Court) of 23 May 2000, which was received at the Court
                                                                       of the Port Authorities — RGC) that the right to fly the
Registry on 19 June 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                       Portuguese flag is granted only to vessels of Portuguese
of The Queen against Secretary of State for Trade and Industry,
                                                                       nationality, a conditio sine qua non for registration of those
Ex parte: Trades Union Congress, on the following question:
                                                                       same vessels. Although Article 4(1) of Decreto-Lei (decree-law)
                                                                       No 214/86 repeals ‘all statutory provisions which, directly or
‘Whether Directive 96/34/EC (1) (as extended to the United             indirectly, limit or condition the right of establishment on
Kingdom by Directive 97/75/EC) (2), and the Framework                  grounds of the nationality of the investor or undertaking
Agreement of 14 December 1995 to which it gave effect,                 concerned’, since that decree-law concerns the right of
required Member States to confer the right to parental leave in        establishment in general, it does not contain any provisions
relation to children under the specified age born or adopted           relating to the granting of the right to fly the national flag.
before the date on which the Directive was given effect in the         Furthermore, the Portuguese Republic itself acknowledges that
national law of Member States or only to children born or              the provisions of the RGC at issue is inadequate, so that it is to
adopted on or after that date.’                                        be suspended pending adoption of new legislation.
(1) Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework
    agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the
    ETUC (OJ L 145, 19.06.96, p. 4).
(2) OJ L 10, 16.01.98, p. 24.
Action brought on 21 June 2000 by the Commission                       Action brought on 22 June 2000 by the Commission of
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                      the European Communities against the French Republic
                              Republic
                         (Case C-247/00)                                                        (Case C-248/00)
                         (2000/C 233/44)
                                                                                                (2000/C 233/45)
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 June
2000 by the Commission of the European Communities                     An action against the French Republic was brought before the
represented by Thomas Van Rijn, Legal Adviser, and Ana                 Court of Justice on 22 June 2000 by the Commission of the
Maria Alves, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an           European Communities, represented by Gerard Berscheid, of
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos              its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,                in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
Kirchberg.                                                             Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.