CELEX: C1997/331/25
Language: en
Date: 1997-11-01 00:00:00
Title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Stockholms Tingsrätt by order of that court of 15 September 1997 in the case of Ulla-Brith Andersson and Susanne Wåkerås-Andersson v. the Swedish State (Case C-321/97)

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:
 ---pagebreak--- C 331/ 14              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    1 . 11 . 97
1 . Is Article 6 of the EEA Agreement to be interpreted as                   administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     meaning that the legal principles laid down by the                      the Seventeenth Commission Directive 94/32/EC (')
     Court of Justice in, inter alia, Joined Cases C-6/90 and                of 29 June 1994 adapting to technical progress
     C-9/90 Francovich are part of EEA law, so that a State                  Annexes II, III, V, VI and VII of Council Directive 76/
     can be liable in damages towards an individual for not                  768/EEC (2 ) on the approximation of the laws of the
     properly implementing Council Directive 80/987/EEC                      Member States relating to cosmetic products, the
     of 20 October 1980, on the approximation of the laws                    Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
     of the Member States relating to the protection of                      under that Directive;
     employees in the event of the insolvency of the
     employer ( l ), during the period in which the State was
     only party to the EEA Agreement and had not acceded              2 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
     to the EU ?
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is
     Article 6 of the EEA Agreement to be interpreted as
     meaning that Directive 80/987/EEC as well as the
     legal principles which the Court of Justice laid down            Pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those set
     in, inter alia, Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90                   out in Case C-320/97 ( 3 ), the period prescribed in the
     Francovich prevail over domestic law if the State has            Directive expired on 30 June 1995 .
     not implemented the aforementioned directive in the
     proper way ?                                                     W OJ L 181 , 15 . 7. 1994, p . 31 .
                                                                      (2 ) OJ L 262, 27. 9 . 1976 , p . 169 .
                                                                      ( 3 ) See p. 13 of this Official Journal .
3 . If the answer to Question 1 is the negative, does a
     State 's accession to the EU mean that Directive 80/
     987/EEC as well as the legal principles which the
     Court of Justice laid down in Francovich prevail over
     domestic law even in regard to circumstances
     occurring during a period in which the State was only
     party to the EEA Agreement but before its accession              Action brought on 17 September 1997 by the Commission
     to the EU if the State has not implemented the                   of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
     aforementioned directive in the proper way ?                                                      Belgium
                                                                                                  (Case C-323/97)
(M OJL283 , 28 . 10. 1980, p. 23 .
                                                                                                   ( 97/C 331 /27)
                                                                      An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                      before the Court of Justice on 17 September 1997 by the
                                                                      Commission of the European Communities, represented
Action brought on 17 September 1997 by the Commission                 by Pieter Van Nuffel, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent,
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                    with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                               Belgium                                Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, also of the Commission's Legal
                         ( Case C-322/97)                             Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                           ( 97/C 331/26 )
                                                                      The Commission claims that the Court should:
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice on 17 September 1997 by the                1 . declare that, by failing to bring into force, within the
Commission of the European Communities, represented                          period prescribed, the laws, regulations and
by Pieter Van Nuffel, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent,                 administrative provisions necessary to comply with
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of                   Council Directive 94/80/EC of 19 December 1994
Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, also of the Commission's Legal                      laying down detailed arrangements for the exercise of
Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                           the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in
                                                                             municipal elections by citizens of the Union residing in
                                                                             a Member State of which they are not nationals ( ! ),
The Commission claims that the Court should :                                the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
                                                                             obligations under that Directive;
 1 . declare that, by failing to bring into force, within
      the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and                 2 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.