CELEX: C2000/355/31
Language: en
Date: 2000-12-09 00:00:00
Title: Case C-387/00: Action brought on 23 October 2000 by the European Parliament against the Council of the European Union

9.12.2000              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 355/15
4.    Is the importer therefor entitled under the Customs Code,         Does Community law, in particular Council Directive
      and in particular Article 236 thereof, to a refund of the         92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 (1), preclude national legis-
      duty paid on the buying commission?                               lation which provides that a life-assurance proposal or, in the
                                                                        absence of a proposal, a life-assurance policy must inform a
                                                                        policy-holder that termination, reduction or redemption of an
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
                                                                        existing life-assurance contract for the purpose of subscribing
    establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302,
    19.10.1992, p. 1).                                                  to a separate life-assurance contract will generally be detrimen-
                                                                        tal to that policy-holder?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo
                                                                        (1) Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the
Social no 1, Pontevedra, by order of that court of                          coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions
28 September 2000 in the case of Marı́a Gardenia Abal                       relating to direct life assurance and amending Directives
Pombo against Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social                     79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life assurance Directive) (OJ
        and Tesorerı́a General de la Seguridad Social                       1992 L 360, p. 1).
                         (Case C-382/00)
                        (2000/C 355/29)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Juzgado de lo Social               Action brought on 23 October 2000 by the European
(Social Court) no 1, Pontevedra, Spain, of 28 September 2000,              Parliament against the Council of the European Union
received at the Court Registry on 18 October 2000, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Marı́a Gardenia Abal Pombo
against Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (National                                      (Case C-387/00)
Social Security Institute) and Tesorerı́a General de la Seguridad
Social (General Social Security Fund) on the following question:
                                                                                                 (2000/C 355/31)
Where, in order for a worker (male or female) who is part of a
family in which other family members are working to be
insured under a special social security scheme for agricultural         An action against the Council of the European Union was
workers, a rule imposes a requirement that the income earned            brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
from the activity to which the scheme applies must be the               ties on 23 October 2000 by the European Parliament,
family’s main income, in the sense of being the highest income,         represented by Ricardo Passos, Head of Division, and Antonio
is the rule contrary to the provisions of Council Directive             Caiola, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address
79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978(1)?                                        for service in Luxembourg at the Post and Registration
                                                                        Department, Bâtiment Tour — Office 017.
(1) OJ L 6, 10.1.1979, p. 24.
                                                                        The European Parliament claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     Annul, pursuant to Article 230 EC:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Cour d’Appel                        —     Council Decision 2000/527/EC of 14 August 2000
de Bruxelles (Ninth Chamber) by judgment of 17 October                              amending Decision 93/731/EC on public access to
2000 in the case of Axa Royale Belge v Georges Ochoa                                Council documents and Council Decision
                   and Stratégie Finance Sprl                                       2000/23/EC on the improvement of information on
                                                                                    the Council’s legislative activities and the public
                         (Case C-386/00)                                            register of Council documents(1);
                        (2000/C 355/30)                                       —     Decision 2000/C239/01 of the Secretary-General of
                                                                                    the Council/High Representative for the Common
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                              Foreign and Security Policy of 27 July 2000 on
European Communities by judgment of 17 October 2000 by                              measures for the protection of classified information
the Cour d’Appel de Bruxelles (Brussels Court of Appeal)                            applicable to the General Secretariat of the
(Ninth Chamber), which was received at the Court Registry on                        Council(2), and
23 October 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Axa
Royale Belge v Georges Ochoa and Stratégie Finance Sprl on
the following question:                                                 —     Order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 355/16                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       9.12.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            The Commission claims that the Court should:
—     Infringement of an essential procedural requirement: the
      legal basis for the decisions at issue is inappropriate. Since       1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      Article 255 EC enshrined for the first time in primary                     and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      legislation rights of access to documents of the Parlia-                   Council Directive 97/79/EC (1) of 18 December 1997
      ment, the Council and the Commission, the Council no                       amending       Directives    71/118/EEC,        72/462/EEC,
      longer has power to regulate such matters under the head                   85/73/EEC, 91/67/EEC, 91/492/EEC, 91/493/EEC,
      of its powers of internal organisation. Article 28(1) and                  92/45/EEC and 92/118/EEC as regards the organisation
      Article 41(1) of the Treaty on European Union explicitly                   of veterinary checks on products entering the Community
      provide that rights of access extend also to documents                     from third countries and Council Directive 98/46/EC (2)
      concerning the common foreign and security policy and                      of 24 June 1998 amending Annexes A, D (Chapter I) and
      cooperation in the fields of justice and home affairs.                     F to Directive 64/432/EEC on health problems affecting
                                                                                 intra-Community trade in bovine animals and swine, the
      The obligation to lay down general principles and limits                   Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      upon the rights of access to documents in accordance                       the Treaty and those directives;
      with the codecision procedure (Article 255(2) EC) is,
      admittedly, one that is to be complied with within a
      period of two years. However, that obligation came into
      effect as soon as the Treaty of Amsterdam came into                  2.    order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
      force, which necessarily excludes the adoption of any
      unilateral measures laying down such general principles
      and limits.
—     Breach of the obligation to cooperate in good faith
      (Article 10 EC): despite the fact that the Commission                Pleas in law and main arguments
      adopted a proposal for a regulation, in accordance with
      Article 255(2) EC, and that the Parliament expected to
      collaborate closely with the Council and the Commission
      under the codecision procedure, the Council adopted                  In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 of the
      the measures at issue without the knowledge of the                   Treaty establishing the European Community, directives are
      Parliament.                                                          binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member
                                                                           State to which they are addressed.
—     Breach of the principle of institutional equilibrium: by
      adopting its decision unilaterally and without having
      regard to the procedures laid down in the Treaty,
      the Council also breached the principle of institutional             Under the first paragraph of Article 10 of the Treaty, Member
      equilibrium.                                                         States are to take all appropriate measures, whether general or
                                                                           particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out
                                                                           of the Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions
(1) OJ L 212 of 23.8.2000, p. 9.                                           of the Community.
(2) OJ C 239 of 23.8.2000, p. 1.
                                                                           It is not disputed by the Hellenic Republic that it must adopt
                                                                           measures to comply with the abovementioned directives.
Action brought on 25 October 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-                    The Commission records that until now the Hellenic Republic
                                 lic                                       has not adopted the appropriate measures to incorporate those
                                                                           directive fully into Greek law.
                          (Case C-393/00)
                         (2000/C 355/32)
                                                                           (1) OJ L 24, 30.1.1998, p. 31.
                                                                           (2) OJ L 198, 15.7.1998, p. 22.
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 Octo-
ber 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of its Legal Service,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
Kirchberg.