CELEX: C1998/113/16
Language: en
Date: 1998-04-11 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 16 February 1998 by the Kingdom of Spain against the Council of the European Union (Case C-36/98)

11.4.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 113/7
Thionville Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg            resources in accordance with environmental criteria. It
at the Chambers of Guy Harles, 8Ð10 rue Mathias                      should have been adopted pursuant to the procedure laid
Hardt, against the judgment delivered on 5 November                  down in Article 130s(2) of the Treaty, which requires the
1997 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance             Council to act unanimously. Consequently, the conclusion
of the European Communities in Case T-26/89 (125)                    of international agreements on such matters likewise
Henri de Compte v. European Parliament.                              requires such unanimity (second sentence of Article
                                                                     228(2)).
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     The position adopted by the Council, which followed the
Ð declare the appeal to be admissible and well-founded,              Commission's proposal, disregards Article 130s(2) as
                                                                     regards measures relating to the management of water
Ð set aside the judgment of 5 November 1997 of the                   resources. The fact that the contested decision was
     Court of First Instance (1),                                    approved on an incorrect legal basis means that it is
                                                                     automatically void.
Ð refer the case back to the Court of First Instance in
     order that it may declare the application for revision          (1) OJ L 342, 12.12.1997, p. 18.
     to be admissible,
Ð order the Parliament to pay the costs of the present
     proceedings and of those before the Court of First
     Instance.
                                                                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Divisional
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  Court, Queen's Bench Division, by order of that court of
                                                                     24 April 1997, in the case of The Queen against Secretary
Unjustified failure to acknowledge as a new fact a                   of State for the Home Department, ex parte: Abdulnasir
document drafted by the Rapporteur of the Budgetary                                               Savas
Control Committee of the European Parliament detailing
                                                                                            (Case C-37/98)
the case of the Members' cash office and contesting point
by point the audit documentation drawn up by the                                             (98/C 113/17)
Parliament authorities with a view to proving the
appellant's guilt.
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities by an order of the Divisional
( ) In Case T-26/89 (125) (OJ C 387, 20.12.1997, p. 17).
 1
                                                                     Court, Queen's Bench Division, of 24 April 1997, which
                                                                     was received at the Court Registry on 16 February 1998,
                                                                     for a preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen against
                                                                     Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte:
                                                                     Abdulnasir Savas, on the following questions.
Action brought on 16 February 1998 by the Kingdom of
      Spain against the Council of the European Union                1. Is the agreement establishing an Association between
                                                                         the European Economic Community and Turkey,
                        (Case C-36/98)
                                                                         signed at Ankara on 12 September 1963 (the
                         (98/C 113/16)                                   Agreement') together with the additional Protocol to
                                                                         the Agreement signed at Brussels on 23 November
                                                                         1970 (the additional Protocol') to be interpreted as
An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                         conferring benefits on a Turkish national who has (a)
brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                         entered or (b) remained in the territory of a Member
Communities on 16 February 1998 by the Kingdom of
                                                                         State in breach of the immigration law of that
Spain, represented by Santiago Ortiz Vaamonde, abogado
                                                                         Member State?
del Estado, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Spanish Embassy, 4Ð6 boulevard E. Servais.
                                                                     2. If the answer to either part of the first question is yes'
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              does (a) Article 13 of the Agreement (b) Article 41 of
                                                                         the additional Protocol have direct effect within the
Ð annul Council Decision 97/825/EC of 24 November                        national legal systems of Member States?
     1997 concerning the conclusion of the Convention on
     Cooperation for the Protection and Sustainable use of           3. Does the Agreement together with the additional
     the river Danube (1),                                               Protocol prohibit the application by a Member State
                                                                         of a provision in its national law which refuses that
Ð order the Council to pay the costs.                                    Turkish national leave to remain on the territory of
                                                                         that Member State on the sole ground that his leave to
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      enter or remain in the territory has expired?
The Kingdom of Spain considers that the Convention is                4. Where, despite the provisions of its national law, the
clearly designed to provide for the management of water                  competent authority in a Member State considers, in