CELEX: C1998/258/29
Language: en
Date: 1998-08-15 00:00:00
Title: Appeal brought on 11 May 1998 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands against the judgment delivered on 19 March 1998 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-83/96 between G. van der Wal, supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-174/98 P)

15.8.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 258/17
The prohibition of cargo-sharing arrangements in any              The appellant claims that the Court should:
future agreements' (Article 5 of the Regulation) is
designed to obviate the significant legal effects of such
arrangements, which undermine the principle of freedom             (1) set aside the contested judgment (1);
to provide services to maritime transport applied by
Regulation No 4055/86. In order to guarantee the
effectiveness of the prohibition, the Member States are            (2) annul the contested decision, alternatively, refer the
obliged to refrain from including cargo-sharing                        case back to the Court of First Instance for further
arrangements in any new agreements negotiated with third               adjudication in the light of the judgment of the Court
countries.                                                             of Justice;
The agreement in question thus contains cargo-sharing              (3) order the Commission to pay the costs.
arrangements which, in the case of future agreements, may
be authorised only in those exceptional circumstances,
provided for in Article 5(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 4055/          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
86, where Community liner shipping companies would
not otherwise have an effective opportunity to ply for
trade to and from the country concerned, and which may             Ð Infringement of Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC,
be permitted in accordance with Article 6 of the                       EC, Euratom on public access to Commission
Regulation, which provides for a proposal to be submitted              documents (2): the Court of First Instance wrongly held
by the Commission to the Council. Those criteria and                   that the public interest exception in Decision 94/90
procedures are not satisfied in the present case.                      may be invoked to protect the procedural autonomy of
                                                                       national courts. The decision of the Commission on
                                                                       which the Court of First Instance ruled in its contested
The agreement in question reserves carriage between the                judgment did not concern the question whether or not
parties thereto for vessels which fly the flag of either of            a national court is obliged to grant access to
those parties or which are operated by national shipping              documents contained in its (national) case-file or Ð
companies'. It follows that vessels operated by nationals              more specifically Ð the extent to which the national
of other Member States are excluded from the trade. The                court should grant access to a letter sent to it by the
agreement has therefore been contrary to the regulation                Commission.
since it entered into force. Consequently, the regulation
has been infringed, albeit that Belgium purports to wish to
terminate the agreement as regards the future. In any                  The Court of First Instance wrongly failed to examine
event, no adjustment has been carried out to date.                     whether, in relation to each document access to which
                                                                       is sought, such access should, having regard to its
                                                                       content, be refused in the public interest. If the Court
(1) OJ L 378 of 31.12.1986, p. 1.                                      of First Instance makes access to documents
                                                                       conditional solely on the status of the addresse in the
                                                                       present case, a national court, it will be applying a
                                                                       criterion for which no support is to be found in
                                                                       Decision 94/90.
Appeal brought on 11 May 1998 by the Kingdom of the                    The right to access to documents held by the
Netherlands against the judgment delivered on 19 March                 Commission constitutes a general principle of Decision
1998 by the Court of First Instance of the European                    94/90. The exceptions to that principle must be
Communities in Case T-83/96 between G. van der Wal,                    narrowly interpreted and strictly applied. The
supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and the                   contested judgment is contrary to that interpretation,
         Commission of the European Communities                        which has previously been accepted by the Court of
                                                                       First Instance (3), since all documents drawn up by the
                      (Case C-174/98 P)                                Commission for the purposes of particular proceedings
                        (98/C 258/29)                                  are excluded from the scope of the principle,
                                                                       irrespective of the contents of those documents. The
                                                                       contested judgment thus applies a broad interpretation
                                                                       to the exception, in a manner which is incompatible
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 March                   with Decision 94/90. That broad interpretation is also
1998 by the Court of First Instance of the European                    contrary to the objective of Decision 94/90, since it
Communities in Case T-83/96 between G. van der Wal,                    precludes attainment of the objective of transparency
supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and the                   in the relationship between the Commission and
Commission of the European Communities was brought                     national courts.
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 11 May 1998 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
represented by Marc Fierstra and Corinna Wissels, of the               The interpretation applied in the contested judgment is
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Hague, acting as Agents.              in breach of the uniform application of Community
 ---pagebreak--- C 258/18              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 15.8.98
     law and, in particular, of Decision 94/90. According to         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     the Court of First Instance, it is for the national court
     Ð at least for as long as the proceedings remain
     pending before that national court Ð to determine, on           The award of the above allowances to women subject to
     the basis of its procedural rules, whether access to            conditions which are not laid down for men employees is
     specified documents should be granted. This means               contrary to the requirements of Article 119 of the EC
     that access to Commission documents will vary                   Treaty and Directive 75/117/EEC.
     according to the legal system applied.
                                                                     Removal of that discrimination should have taken place
Ð Infringement of Article 33 in conjunction with
                                                                     on 1 January 1981, the date of entry into force in Greece
     Article 44 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice:
                                                                     of Article 119 of the EC Treaty and Directive 75/117/
     the Court of First Instance failed to state adequate
                                                                     EEC. The Hellenic Republic harmonised its legislation
     reasons for the contested judgment, in that it omitted
                                                                     with the above provisions, but did not give it retroactive
     to indicate the manner in which Article 6 of the
                                                                     force. The failure to award the above allowances to
     European Convention of Human Rights, on which the
                                                                     married women employees retrospectively from 1 January
     Court of First Instance bases the principle of the
                                                                     1981 not only deprived them of part of their pay in the
     procedural autonomy of national courts, is infringed
                                                                     period from that date until the Greek legislation was
     in the event that it is the Commission which decides
                                                                     harmonised, but continues to produce unlawful effects to
     whether access is to be granted to documents drawn
                                                                     the extent to which those allowances are taken into
     up by that institution for the purposes of particular
                                                                     account for pension calculation purposes. Consequently it
     court proceedings.
                                                                     is contrary also to Article 4(1) of Directive 79/7/EEC,
                                                                     which prohibits any discrimination in matters of social
(1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998, p. 14.                                     security on ground of sex, in particular as concerns the
(2) OJ L 46 of 18.2.1994, p. 58.                                     calculation of benefits.
(3) Judgment of 5 March 1997 in Case T-105/95 WWF UK v
    Commission.
                                                                     (1) OJ L 45 of 19.2.1975, p. 19.
                                                                     (2) OJ L 6 of 10.1.1979, p. 24.
Action brought on 18 May 1998 by the Commission of
 the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                        (Case C-187/98)                              An appeal brought on 19 May 1998 by G. van der Wal
                                                                     against the judgment delivered on 19 March 1998 by the
                         (98/C 258/30)                               Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
                                                                     Case T-83/96 between G. van der Wal, supported by the
                                                                     Kingdom of the Netherlands, and the Commission of the
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought                                      European Communities
before the Court of Justice on 18 May 1998 by the                                          (Case C-189/98 P)
Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Dimitrios Gouloussis, of its Legal Service, with an                                        (98/C 258/31)
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
Gómez de la Cruz, of the Commission's Legal Service,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                     An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 March
                                                                     1998 by the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                     Communities in Case T-83/96 between G. van der Wal,
The applicant claims that the Court should declare that:
                                                                     supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and the
                                                                     Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                     before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
Ð the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                     on 19 May 1998 by G. van der Wal, represented by
     under Community law, in particular under Article 119
                                                                     L. Y. J. M. Parret, with an address for service in
     of the EC Treaty, Article 3 of Directive 75/117/EEC (1)
                                                                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May, 31 Grand Rue.
     and the first paragraph of Article 4 of Directive 79/7/
     EEC (2), in so far as it has not repealed, with
     retroactive effect from the date of the entry into force
     of the above Community provisions in Greece, rules              The appellant claims that the Court should:
     which, in respect of the award to employees of a
     family allowance or marriage allowance, which are
     taken into account in the determination of the level of         (1) declare the present appeal against the judgment
     pensionable salary, laid down special substantive                   delivered on 19 March 1998 by the Court of First
     conditions for married women employees which were                   Instance of the European Communities in Case T-83/
     not laid down for married men employees.                            96 (1) admissible;