natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Ειδικότερα, η δ ι ά τ α ξ η π ο υ ε π ι β ά λ λ ε ισ τ ο ν υ π ά λ λ η λ ο ν α α π ο φ ε ύ γ ε ικ ά θ ε π ρ ά ξ η κ α ι ε ι δ ικ ό τ ε ρ α κ ά θ ε δ η μ ό σ ι α έ κ φ ρ α σ η π ο υ δ ύ ν α τ α ι ν α θ ίξ ε ι τ η ν α ξ ι ο π ρ έ π ε ι α τ ο υ λ ε ι τ ο υ ρ γ ή μ α τ ο ς τ ο υ δ ε ν σ υ ν ισ τ ά ε μ π ό δ ι ο σ τ η ν ε λ ε υ θ ε ρ ία ε κ φ ρ ά σ ε ω ς τ ω ν υ π α λ λ ή λ ω ν , α λ λ ά ε π ι β ά λ λ ε ι λ ο γ ικ ά ό ρ ι α σ τ η ν ά σ κ η σ η τ ο υ δ ικ α ιώ μ α τ ο ς α υ τ ο ύ χ ά ρ ι ν τ ο υ σ υ μ φ έ ρ ο ν τ ο ς τ η ς υ π η ρ ε σ ία ς .
The provision requiring an officialto abstainfrom any action and, in particular, any public expression of opinionwhich might reflect on his position (Article 12 of the Staff Regulations)did notconstitute a bar to the freedom of expression of officials, but placed reasonablelimits on the exercise of that right in the interests of the service.
Τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο π α ρ έ π ε μ ψ ε ε π ί σ η ς σ τ ο υ ς σ κ ο π ο ύ ς τ ο υ ά ρ θ ρ ο υ 12 τ ο υ Κ Υ Κ , π ο υ σ υ ν ί σ τ α ν τ α ισ τ η δ ι α σ φ ά λ ισ η μ ι α ς ε ικ ό ν α ς α ξ ι ο π ρ έ π ε ι α ς σ ύ μ φ ω ν η ς π ρ ο ς τ η ν ι δ ι α ι τ έ ρ ω ς σ ω σ τ ή κ α ι ά ξ ι α σ ε β α σ μ ο ύ δ ι α γ ω γ ή π ο υ δ ικ α ι ο ύ τ α ικ α ν ε ί ς ν α α ν α μ έ ν ε ι α π ό τ α μ έ λ η μ ι α ς δ ι ε θ ν ο ύ ς δ η μ ό σ ι α ς δ ι ο ικ ή σ ε ω ς , κ α θ ώ ς κ α ισ τ η δ ι α σ φ ά λ ισ η τ η ς π ί σ τ ε ω ς τ ο υ υ π α λ λ ή λ ο υ έ ν α ν τ ι τ ο υ ο ρ γ ά ν ο υ σ τ ο ο π ο ί ο υ π η ρ ε τ ε ί , ι δ ί ω ς ό τ α ν α υ τ ό ς ε ί ν α ι υ ψ η λ ό β α θ μ ο ς .
The Court alsoreferred to the aims pursued by Article LZ of the Staff Regulations, namely toensure a dignified image in keepingwith the particularly correct and respectablebehaviour one was entitled to expect from members of an international civilservice and to preservethe loyalty of officials to the institution employing them, loyalty which was all the more vital where the official had a high grade.
Η υ π ο χ ρ έ ω σ η π ρ ο η γ ο υ μ έ ν η ς λ ή ψ ε ω ς α δ ε ία ς π ρ ο ς δ η μ ο σ ί ε υ σ η (άρθρο17 τ ο υ Κ Υ Κ ), η ο π ο ία ε π ι β ά λ λ ε τ α ι μ ό ν ο ν ό τ α ν τ ο κ ε ί μ ε ν ο σ υ ν δ έ ε τ α ι μ ε τ η δ ρ α σ τ η ρ ι ό τ η τ α τ ω ν Κ ο ι ν ο τ ή τ ω ν , ε π ί σ η ς δ ε ν θ ί γ ε ι τ η ν ε λ ε υ θ ε ρ ία ε κ φ ρ ά σ ε ω ς τ ω ν υ π α λ λ ή λ ω ν .
Nor was the freedom of expression of officials impaired by the need to obtainpermission before publication (Article L7 of the Staff Regulations), which wasrequired only where the text dealt with the work of the Communities.
π ο υ π ρ ο σ ά π τ ο ν τ α ν α π ο δ ε δ ε ι γ μ έ ν α κ α ι Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο α π έ ρ ρ ιψ ε σ τ ο ν η τ η ν
The Courtpointed out that such permission could be refused only where publication wasliable to prejudice the interests of the Communities, and that the assessment of theinstitution concerned was subject to review by the Community judicature.
Ε π ε ι δ ή τ α π ρ α γ μ α τ ικ ά π ε ρ ισ τ α τ ικ ά π ρ ο σ φ ε ύ γ ο ν τ α - ε ν ά γ ο ν τ α θ ε ω ρ ή θ η κ α ν ε π ι β λ η θ ε ί σ α π ο ι ν ή π ρ ο σ ή κ ο υ σ α , τοπροσφυγή-αγωγή.
Since the truth of the matters alleged was proved and the penalty imposed wasappropriate, the Court dismissed the action.
Μ ε τ η δ ε ύ τ ε ρ η α π ό φ α σ η τ ο υ Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο υ ε π ικ υ ρ ώ θ η κ ε α π ό φ α σ η π ε ρ ία π ο ρ ρ ίψ ε ω ς α ι τ ή μ α τ ο ς ν α μ ο ι ρ α σ τ ε ί μ ε τ α ξ ύ τ ο υ π α τ έ ρ α κ α ι τ η ς μ η τ έ ρ α ς η ά δ ε ι α μ η τ ρ ό τ η τ α ς (α π ό φ α σ η τ η ς 26η ς Ο κ τ ω β ρ ί ο υ 1999, Τ-51/98, Β ι ι π ι Ι Ικ α ι Ν ο ή β ξ α Ο ι ι β π α κ α τ ά Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς , η ο π ο ία δ ε ν α κ ό μ α δ η μ ο σ ι ε υ θ ε ί σ τ η Σ υ λ λ ο γ ή ).
The second judgment confirmed a decision rejecting a request for maternity leaveto be shared between the father and the mother (udgment of 26 October 1999 in Case T-51/98 Burrill and Noriega Guerra v Commission, not yet reported in the ECR). Article 58 of the Staff Regulations essentially provides that pregnantwomen are entitled to 16 weeks' leave.
Τοάρθρο 58 τ ο υ Κ Υ Κ π ρ ο β λ έ π ε ι , κατ' ουσίαν, ό τ ι ο ι έ γ κ υ ο ι γ υ ν α ί κ ε ς δ ικ α ι ο ύ ν τ α ι ά δ ε ι α δ ε κ α έ ξ ι ε β δ ο μ ά δ ω ν .
In its judgment, the Court held that theinterpretation under which the leave entitlement provided for by Article 58 isexpressly reserved to women is not contrary to the principle of equal treatmentfor men and women.
Μετηναπόφασηαυτή, τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο έ κ ρ ι ν ε ό τ ι η ε ρ μ η ν ε ία σ ύ μ φ ω ν α μ ε τ η ν ο π ο ία τ ο δ ικ α ί ω μ α α δ ε ία ς π ο υ π ρ ο β λ έ π ε ι τ ο ά ρ θ ρ ο α υ τ ό α ν α γ ν ω ρ ίζ ε τ α ι ρ η τ ώ ς μ ό ν ο σ τ ι ς γ υ ν α ί κ ε ς δ ε ν α ν τ έ β α ι ν ε σ τ η ν α ρ χ ή τ η ς ί σ η ς μ ε τ α χ ε ι ρ ί σ ε ω ς μ ε τ α ξ ύ α ν δ ρ ώ ν κ α ι γ υ ν α ικ ώ ν .
In accordance with the case-law of the Court of Justice,maternity leave meets two specific types of need of the woman: first, to protecther biological condition during and after pregnancyuntil her physical and mentalfunctions have returned to normal following childbirth and, second, to protect thespecial relationship between a woman and her child over the period which followspregnancy and childbirth, by preventing that relationship from being disturbed by the burdens resulting from working at the same time.
Εξάλλου, τοάρθρο 58 τ ο υ Κ Υ Κ δ ε ν θ έ τ ε ι τ ι ς γ υ ν α ί κ ε ς σ ε μ ε ι ο ν ε κ τ ικ ή θ έ σ η , σ τ ο μ έ τ ρ ο π ο υ δ ε ν ε π ι β ά λ λ ε ισ τ η μ η τ έ ρ α π ε ρ ί ο δ ο ε π α γ γ ε λ μ α τ ικ ή ς α δ ρ ά ν ε ι α ς δ ε κ α έ ξ ι ε β δ ο μ ά δ ω ν , κ α θ ό σ ο ν α υ τ ή μ π ο ρ ε ί ν α ε π ισ τ ρ έ ψ ε ισ τ η ν ε ρ γ α σ ία τ η ς π ρ ι ν α π ό τ η ν ε κ π ν ο ή τ η ς π ρ ο θ ε σ μ ία ς α υ τ ή ς .
Article 58 accordinglypursues an objective of equal treatment between male and femaleworkers. workers.
Τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο έ κ ρ ι ν ε ό τ ι , ε λ λ ε ίψ ε ι ρ η τ ώ ν δ ι α τ ά ξ ε ω ν σ τ ο ν Κ Υ Κ , τ ο Σ υ μ β ο ύ λ ι ο δ ε ν μ π ο ρ ε ί ν α α π α ι τ ή σ ε ι , β ά σ ε ι τ η ς α ρ χ ή ς τ η ς α λ λ η λ ε γ γ ύ η ς κ α ι μ ό ν ο ν , ν α κ α τ α τ ε θ ε ί σ τ ο ν κ ο ι ν ο τ ικ ό
The Court also held that Article 58 of the Staff Regulations does not disadvantagewomen: it does not prohibit the mother from working for a period of 16 weekssince she may, subject to certain conditions, resumework before the expiry ofthat period.
π ρ ο ϋ π ο λ ο γ ισ μ ό ε ν δ ε χ ο μ έ ν ω ς ν α δ ικ α ι ω μ ά τ ω ν τ α σ υ ν τ α ξ ι ο δ ο τ ικ ώ ν τ ο ε π ι π λ έ ο ν χ ρ η μ α τ ικ ό π ο σ ό τ ο ο π ο ί ο μ π ο ρ ε ί π ρ ο κ ύ ψ ε ι α π ό τ η μ ε τ α φ ο ρ ά τ ω ν σ υ ν τ α ξ ι ο δ ο τ ικ ώ ν ο π ο ία α π ο κ τ ή θ η κ α ν σ τ ο π λ α ί σ ι ο ε θ ν ικ ώ ν σ υ σ τ η μ ά τ ω ν .
Court held that, in the absence of expressprovisions in the Staff Regulations, the Council cannot require, solely on the basis of the principle of solidarity,that any surplus which may result from the transfer of pension rights acquired undernational pension schemes be paid into the Community budget.
Α ι τ ή σ ε ι ς α σ φ α λ ισ τ ικ ώ ν μ έ τ ρ ω ν
Applications for interim relief
Μ ε τ ι ς δ ι α τ ά ξ ε ι ς τ η ς 30ή ς Ι ο υ ν ί ο υ 1999, Τ-13/99 Κ, Ρ β ζ β τ Λ η ί π ι α Ι β α Ι ΐ Η κ α τ ά Σ υ μ β ο υ λ ί ο υ (η ο π ο ία δ ε ν έ χ ε ι α κ ό μ α δ η μ ο σ ι ε υ θ ε ί σ τ η Σ υ λ λ ο γ ή ), κ α ι Τ -70/99 Κ, Λ Ι ρ Η α π η α κ α τ ά Σ υ μ β ο υ λ ί ο υ (η ο π ο ία δ ε ν έ χ ε ι α κ ό μ α δ η μ ο σ ι ε υ θ ε ί σ τ η Σ υ λ λ ο γ ή ), α π ο ρ ρ ί φ θ η κ α ν δ ύ ο α ι τ ή σ ε ι ς α ν α σ τ ο λ ή ς ε κ τ ε λ έ σ ε ω ς τ ο υ κ α ν ο ν ισ μ ο ύ τ ο υ Σ υ μ β ο υ λ ί ο υ τ η ς 17ης
These applications were lodged in connection with Commission decisions imposing fines for breach of competitionrules: see,in particular, the orders of 21 June 1999 in CaseT-56/99 R Marlines v Commission,not yet reported in the ECR; of 9 July 1999 in CaseT-9/99 R HFB Holding and Others v Commission, not yet reported in the ECR (the appeal against that order was dismissed by order of the President of the Court
Τ ο ζ ή τ η μ α α υ τ ό π ρ ο ϋ π ο θ έ τ ε ι ε π ισ τ α μ έ ν η ε ξ έ τ α σ η π ο υ δ ε ν μ π ο ρ ε ί ν α π ρ α γ μ α τ ο π ο ι η θ ε ί σ τ ο π λ α ί σ ι ο τ η ς δ ι α δ ικ α σ ία ς α σ φ α λ ισ τ ικ ώ ν μ έ τ ρ ω ν .
accountedfor 40% and 20% respectively of the applications lodged in 1999.However, three orders made in other fields are dealt with here.
Όσοναφορά, στησυνέχεια, τ η ν π ρ ο ϋ π ό θ ε σ η τ ο υ κ α τ ε π ε ί γ ο ν τ ο ς , ε ξ ε τ ά σ τ η κ ε κ α τ ά π ό σ ο ν η ε κ τ έ λ ε σ η τ ο υ κ α ν ο ν ισ μ ο ύ μ π ο ρ ο ύ σ ε ν α π ρ ο κ α λ έ σ ε ισ τ ι ς α ι τ ο ύ σ ε ς σ ο β α ρ ή κ α ι α ν ε π α ν ό ρ θ ω τ η ζ η μ ία .
By orders of 30 June 1999 in Case T-L3199 R ffizer Animal Health v Council and Case T-70199 R Alpharmn v Council, not yet reported in the ECR, the President of the Court dismissed two applications for $uspension of the operation of the Council regulation of 17 December 1998 removing virginiamycin and bacitracinzinc from the list of antibiotics authorised as additives in animal feed.
Σ ε α μ φ ό τ ε ρ ε ς τ ι ς υ π ο θ έ σ ε ι ς , η ζ η τ ο ύ μ ε ν η α ν α σ τ ο λ ή θ α δ ικ α ι ο λ ο γ ο ύ ν τ α ν μ ό ν ο ν α ν π ρ ο έ κ υ π τ ε ό τ ι , ε λ λ ε ίψ ε ι τ έ τ ο ι ο υ μ έ τ ρ ο υ , η Ρ ίϊζ ε Γ κ α ι η Α Ι ρ Γ ί Β Γ Γ Π δ θ α π ε ρ ι έ ρ χ ο ν τ α ν σ ε μ ι α κ α τ ά σ τ α σ η η ο π ο ία θ α μ π ο ρ ο ύ σ ε ν α θ έ σ ε ισ ε κ ί ν δ υ ν ο τ η ν ί δ ι α τ ο υ ς τ η ν υ π ό σ τ α σ η ή ν α μ ε τ α β ά λ ε ι α ν ε π α ν ό ρ θ ω τ α τ α μ ε ρ ί δ ι α τ ο υ ς σ τ η ν α γ ο ρ ά .
Thoseantibiotics are respectively produced by Pfizer Animal Health SA/NV, a companyincorporated under Belgian law, and Alpharma Inc., a company established in the United States. The regulation, whose annulment is also sought, prohibits themarketing of both antibiotics in all the Member States from 1 July 1999 at the latest.
Όμως, ο Π ρ ό ε δ ρ ο ς τ ο υ Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο υ δ ι α π ί σ τ ω σ ε , π ε ρ α τ ώ ν ο ν τ α ς τ η ν ε κ τ ί μ η σ η τ ο υ , ό τ ι δ ε ν σ υ ν έ τ ρ ε χ ε τ έ τ ο ι α π ε ρ ί π τ ω σ η .
It may be noted that, in ffizer Animal Health v Council, the applicant wassupported by four associations and two stock farmers and that the Council was supportedby the Commission and three Member States.
η ο ικ ο ν ο μ ικ ή ζ η μ ία π ο υ θ α υ π ο σ τ ε ί η Ρ ίΐζ 6Γ (Τ-13/99 Κ) δ ε ν θ α ε ί ν α ι τ έ τ ο ι α ώ σ τ ε η ε τ α ι ρ ία α υ τ ή ν α μ η μ π ο ρ ε ί ν α σ υ ν ε χ ί σ ε ι τ η δ ρ α σ τ η ρ ι ό τ η τ α τ η ς μ έ χ ρ ι τ η ν π ε ρ ά τ ω σ η τ η ς κ ύ ρ ι α ς δ ί κ η ς , ο Π ρ ό ε δ ρ ο ς τ ο υ Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο υ υ π ε ν θ ύ μ ισ ε , μεταξύάλλων, ό τ ι η ε κ τ ί μ η σ η τ η ς ο υ σ ι α σ τ ικ ή ς κ α τ α σ τ ά σ ε ω ς ε ν ό ς α ι τ ο ύ ν τ ο ς μ π ο ρ ε ί ν α π ρ α γ μ α τ ο π ο ι η θ ε ί λ α μ β α ν ο μ έ ν ω ν ι δ ί ω ς υ π ό ψ η τ ω ν χ α ρ α κ τ η ρ ισ τ ικ ώ ν τ ο υ ο μ ί λ ο υ μ ε τ ο ν ο π ο ί ο σ υ ν δ έ ε τ α ι μ έ σ ω τ ο υ σ υ ν ό λ ο υ τ ω ν μ ε τ ό χ ω ν τ ο υ .
As regards the condition relating to the existence of a prima facie case, the President of the Court found in both orders that each of the companies and the Council disagreedfundamentally as to the circumstances in which the competentauthorities might adopt a measurewithdrawing authorisation in respect of anantibiotic as a precautionary step. That question required very thoroughexamination, which could not be undertaken in the context of proceedings forinterim relief.
Κ α ί τ ο ι δ ι α π ί σ τ ω σ ε ό τ ι δ ε ν υ π ή ρ χ ε ε π ε ί γ ο υ σ α α ν ά γ κ η ν α α π ο φ α ν θ ε ί ε π ί τ η ς α ν α σ τ ο λ ή ς ε κ τ ε λ έ σ ε ω ς , ο Π ρ ό ε δ ρ ο ς τ ο υ Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο υ π ρ ο έ β η σ τ η σ τ ά θ μ ισ η τ ω ν ε κ α τ έ ρ ω θ ε ν σ υ μ φ ε ρ ό ν τ ω ν .
With regard, next, to the condition relating to urgency,the President of the Courtexamined whether implementation of the regulation risked causing serious andirreparable damage to the applicants.
Υ π ό τ ο π ρ ί σ μ α α υ τ ό , σ τ ι ς ε π ι τ α γ έ ς π ο υ σ υ ν δ έ ο ν τ α ι μ ε τ η ν π ρ ο σ τ α σ ία τ η ς δ η μ ό σ ι α ς υ γ ε ία ς π ρ έ π ε ι ν α α ν α γ ν ω ρ ισ τ ε ί υ π έ ρ τ ε ρ η σ π ο υ δ α ι ό τ η τ α έ ν α ν τ ι ο ικ ο ν ο μ ικ ώ ν θ ε ω ρ ή σ ε ω ν (μεταξύάλλων, δ ι ά τ α ξ η τ η ς 12η ς Ι ο υ λ ί ο υ 1996, Ο-180/96 Κ, Η ν ω μ έ ν ο Β α σ ί λ ε ι ο κ α τ ά Ε π ι τ ρ ο π ή ς , Συλλογή1996, σ. 1-3903).
In both cases, the suspension sought couldbe justified only if it appeared that, in the absence of such relief, Pfizer andAlpharma would be placed in a situation which could endanger their veryexistence or irremediablv affect their market share.
γ ι α τ η δ η μ ό σ ι α υγεία, διότι ο ρ ισ μ έ ν α βακτηρίδια, π ο λ ύ σ ο β α ρ έ ς σ υ ν ε π ε ία τ η ς α ν α π τ ύ ξ ε ω ς τηςαντοχήςτους, θ α μ π ο ρ ο ύ σ α ν ν α μ η ν α π ο τ ε λ ε σ μ α τ ικ ά μ ε τ α φ ά ρ μ α κ α π ο υ α π ό τ ο ν ά ν θ ρ ω π ο , μ ε τ α ξ ύ τ ω ν ο π ο ί ω ν κ α ισ τ ρ ε π τ ο γ ρ α μ ι ν ώ ν , στηνοποίαανήκουνη κ α τ α π ο λ ε μ ο ύ ν τ α ι π λ έ ο ν π ρ ο ο ρ ίζ ο ν τ α ι γ ι α τ η χ ρ ή σ η α υ τ ά τ η ς ο ικ ο γ ε ν ε ία ς τ ω ν β ι ρ γ ι ν ι α μ υ κ ί ν η κ α ι η β α κ ι τ ρ α κ ί ν η .
found at the end of his appraisalsthat this was not the case. In reaching theconclusion that the financial loss which Pfizer (Case T-13199 R) would suffer wasnot such as to prevent it from remaining able to continue its operations until themain proceedings were disposedof, the President of the Court pointed out that,for the purposes of assessing the economic circumstances of the applicant, consideration could be given, in particular, to the characteristics of the group ofwhich, by virtue of its shareholdingstructure, it formed part.
Ε ν ό ψ ε ι τ ο υ δ ι α π ισ τ ω θ έ ν τ ο ς κ ι ν δ ύ ν ο υ , ο Π ρ ό ε δ ρ ο ς τ ο υ Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο υ α π έ ρ ρ ιψ ε τ ι ς α ι τ ή σ ε ι ς α ν α σ τ ο λ ή ς ε κ τ ε λ έ σ ε ω ς .
Although the President of the Court found that there were no grounds of urgencyjustiffing suspension of the operation of the regulation, he proceededto balancethe various interests at stake.
Η α ν α ί ρ ε σ η π ο υ α σ κ ή θ η κ ε κ α τ ά τ η ς δ ι α τ ά ξ ε ω ς σ τ η ν υ π ό θ ε σ η Ρ ^ί ζ β Γ Α η ΐ π ι α Ι Η β α Ι ί Η κ α τ ά Σ υ μ β ο υ λ ί ο υ α π ο ρ ρ ί φ θ η κ ε α π ό τ ο ν Π ρ ό ε δ ρ ο τ ο υ Δ ικ α σ τ η ρ ί ο υ [δ ι ά τ α ξ η τ η ς 18η ς Ν ο ε μ β ρ ί ο υ 1999, 0-329/99 Ρ(Κ), Ρ [ί ζ β Γ Α η π η α Ι Η β α Ι ί Η κ α τ ά Σ υ μ β ο υ λ ί ο υ , η ο π ο ία δ ε ν έ χ ε ι α κ ό μ α δ η μ ο σ ι ε υ θ ε ί σ τ η Σ υ λ λ ο γ ή ].
He found that the balance of interests favoured themaintenance of the contested regulation, since damage to commercial and socialinterests of the kind that would be sustainedby the applicants and the partiessupporting Pfizer could not outweigh the damage to public health whlch wouldbe liable to be caused by suspension of the contested regulation, and which couldnot be remediedif the main action were subsequently dismissed.
Μ ι α δ ι α φ ο ρ ά σ υ ν τ α γ μ α τ ικ ή ς φ ύ σ ε ω ς ο δ ή γ η σ ε τ ο ν Π ρ ό ε δ ρ ο τ ο υ Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο υ ν α δ ι α τ ά ξ ε ι τ η ν α ν α σ τ ο λ ή τ η ς ε κ τ ε λ έ σ ε ω ς π ρ ά ξ ε ω ς τ ο υ Ε υ ρ ω π α ϊκ ο ύ Κ ο ι ν ο β ο υ λ ί ο υ π ο υ ε μ π ό δ ι ζ ε τ η σ ύ σ τ α σ η π ο λ ι τ ικ ή ς ο μ ά δ α ς (δ ι ά τ α ξ η τ η ς 25η ς Ν ο ε μ β ρ ί ο υ 1999, Τ-222/99 Κ, Μ α η ί η β ζ κ α ι ά β Ο α η Ι Ι β κ α τ ά Κ ο ι ν ο β ο υ λ ί ο υ , η ο π ο ία δ ε ν έ χ ε ι α κ ό μ α δ η μ ο σ ι ε υ θ ε ί σ τ η Σ υ λ λ ο γ ή ).
In the light ofthat consideration, there could be no question but that the requirements of theprotection of public health had to take precedence over economic considerations(see, in particular, the order of 12 July 1996 in Case C-180/96 R United Kingdom v Commission [1996] ECR I-3903).
Τοάρθρο 29 τ ο υ Κ α ν ο ν ισ μ ο ύ τ ο υ Κ ο ι ν ο β ο υ λ ί ο υ π ρ ο β λ έ π ε ι ό τ ι ο ι β ο υ λ ε υ τ έ ς μ π ο ρ ο ύ ν ν α σ υ γ κ ρ ο τ ο ύ ν ο μ ά δ ε ς α ν ά λ ο γ α μ ε τ η ν π ο λ ι τ ικ ή τ ο υ ς τ ο π ο θ έ τ η σ η .
He also pointed out that, where there wasuncertainty as to the existence or extent of risks to humanhealth, the institutions could take protective measures without having to wait until the reality andseriousness of those risks became fully apparent.
Μ ε τ ά τ ι ς ε υ ρ ω π α ϊκ έ ς ε κ λ ο γ έ ς τ ο υ Ι ο υ ν ί ο υ 1999, σ υ σ τ ά θ η κ ε η Τ ε χ ν ικ ή Ο μ ά δ α Α ν ε ξ α ρ τ ή τ ω ν Β ο υ λ ε υ τ ώ ν (Τ Ο Α Β ) — Μ ικ τ ή Ο μ ά δ α , ο ισ υ σ τ α τ ικ ο ί κ α ν ό ν ε ς τ η ς ο π ο ία ς π ρ ο έ β λ ε π α ν τ η ν π λ ή ρ η α μ ο β α ία π ο λ ι τ ικ ή α ν ε ξ α ρ τ η σ ία τ ω ν β ο υ λ ε υ τ ώ ν π ο υ τ η ν α π α ρ τ ίζ ο υ ν .
Having regard to theinformation placed before him, the President of the Court found that it was norimpossible that bacteria which had become resistant due to the feedingto livestock of antibiotic additives such as virginiamycin and bacitracin zinc could betransmissible from animals to humans and the risk of increasedantimicrobial antimicrobial resistancein human medicine on account of their use in animal feed thereforecould not be ruled out.
Τ ο Κ ο ι ν ο β ο ύ λ ι ο , θ ε ω ρ ώ ν τ α ς ό τ ι δ ε ν π λ η ρ ο ύ ν τ α ν ο ι π ρ ο ϋ π ο θ έ σ ε ι ς τ ο υ Κ α ν ο ν ισ μ ο ύ π ε ρ ί σ υ σ τ ά σ ε ω ς π ο λ ι τ ικ ώ ν ο μ ά δ ω ν , εξέδωσε, στις 14 Σεπτεμβρίου 1999, π ρ ά ξ η π ε ρ ί ε ρ μ η ν ε ία ς τ ο υ ά ρ θ ρ ο υ 29 τ ο υ Κ α ν ο ν ισ μ ο ύ τ ο υ κ α ι α π α γ ό ρ ε υ σ ε τ η σ ύ σ τ α σ η τ η ς ο μ ά δ α ς Τ Ο Α Β .
If increasedantimicrobial resistancein human medicine were to occur, the potential consequences for public health would be very serious,since, if they developed resistance, certain bacteria could no longer be effectivelycombated by certain medicines used in the treatment of humans, in particular those of the family including virginiamycin and bacitracin.
Δύοβουλευτές, ο 1.-0.
On the basis of therisk found by him, the President of the Court dismissed the applications for suspension of the operation of the regulation.
Μ & Γ ΐΐη ε ζ κ α ι ο Ο . ά ε Ο α ι ι ΐΐε , ζήτησαν, π α ρ ά λ λ η λ α μ ε τ η ν π ρ ο σ φ υ γ ή τ ο υ ς μ ε τ η ν ο π ο ία ζ η τ ο ύ σ α ν τ η ν α κ ύ ρ ω σ η τ η ς π ρ ά ξ ε ω ς α υ τ ή ς , κ α ι τ η ν α ν α σ τ ο λ ή τ η ς ε κ τ ε λ έ σ ε ω ς τ η ς . Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο υ εξέτασε, καταρχάς,
The appeal brought against theorder in Pfizer Animal Health v Commission was dismissed by the President ofthe Court of Justice (order of 18 November 1999 in CaseC-3zglgg P(R) pfizer Animal Health v Council, not yet reported in the ECR).
α π ο τ ε λ έ σ ο υ ν τ ο α ν τ ικ ε ί μ ε ν ο π ρ ο σ φ υ γ ή ς α κ υ ρ ώ σ ε ω ς .
preventing a political group from being set up (order of 25 November 1999 in Case T-222199P. Martinez and de Gaulle v Parliament, not yet reported in the
Επιπλέον, θ ε ώ ρ η σ ε ό τ ι η π ρ ο σ β α λ λ ό μ ε ν η π ρ ά ξ η α φ ο ρ ο ύ σ ε , εκπρώτηςόψεως, α τ ο μ ικ ά κ α ι ά μ ε σ α τ ο υ ς β ο υ λ ε υ τ έ ς π ο υ ζ η τ ο ύ σ α ν τ η ν α κ ύ ρ ω σ η τ η ς , ι δ ί ω ς κ α θ ό σ ο ν τ ο υ ς ε μ π ό δ ι ζ ε ν α α ν ή κ ο υ ν σ τ η ν ο μ ά δ α Τ Ο Α Β . Συνεπώς, η α ί τ η σ η α σ φ α λ ισ τ ικ ώ ν μ έ τ ρ ω ν κ ρ ί θ η κ ε π α ρ α δ ε κ τ ή .
Since the Parliament took the view that the conditions laiddown for the setting up of a political group were not satisfied,it adopted on 14September 1999 a measure interpreting Article 29 of the Rules of Procedure,which prevented the Technical Group of Independent Members from being set up.Two Members, Mr Martinez and Mr de Gaulle, brought an action for annulmentof that measure and applied in parallel for its implementation to be suspended.
Ό σ ο ν α φ ο ρ ά τ ο υ ς ισ χ υ ρ ισ μ ο ύ ς π ο υ θ α δ ικ α ι ο λ ο γ ο ύ σ α ν , εκπρώτηςόψεως, τ η χ ο ρ ή γ η σ η τ ο υ ζ η τ ο υ μ έ ν ο υ μ έ τ ρ ο υ , ο Π ρ ό ε δ ρ ο ς τ ο υ Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο υ π α ρ α τ ή ρ η σ ε ό τ ι δ ε ν μ π ο ρ ο ύ σ ε ν α α π ο κ λ ε ισ θ ε ί η π α ρ α β ία σ η τ η ς α ρ χ ή ς τ η ς ί σ η ς μ ε τ α χ ε ι ρ ί σ ε ω ς .
In his order, the President of the Court was required first of all to deal with theissue of the admissibility of the application for interim relief. While the Community judicature reviews the legality of measures of the EuropeanParliament intended to produce legal effects with regard to third parties, measureswhich relate only to the internal organisation of its work, on the other hand,cannot be challenged in an action for annulment.
Πράγματι, ναιμεντοάρθρο 29 τ ο υ Κ α ν ο ν ισ μ ο ύ τ ο υ Κ ο ι ν ο β ο υ λ ί ο υ δ ε ν τ ο ε μ π ο δ ίζ ε ι ν α έ χ ε ι δ ι α φ ο ρ ε τ ικ ή ε κ τ ί μ η σ η , σ ε σ υ ν ά ρ τ η σ η μ ε ό λ α τ α κ ρ ί σ ι μ α σ χ ε τ ικ ά σ τ ο ιχ ε ία , έ ν α ν τ ι δ ι α φ ό ρ ω ν π ο λ ι τ ικ ώ ν δ η λ ώ σ ε ω ν π ε ρ ί σ υ σ τ ά σ ε ω ς π ο λ ι τ ικ ή ς ο μ ά δ α ς υ π ο β α λ λ ο μ έ ν ω ν σ τ ο ν Π ρ ό ε δ ρ ο τ ο υ ο ρ γ ά ν ο υ α υ τ ο ύ , μ ι α τ έ τ ο ι α ς φ ύ σ ε ω ς δ ι α φ ο ρ ε τ ικ ή μ ε τ α χ ε ί ρ ισ η , όμως, μ π ο ρ ε ί ν α θ ε ω ρ η θ ε ί ό τ ι α π ο τ ε λ ε ία π α γ ο ρ ε υ ό μ ε ν η δ υ σ μ ε ν ή δ ι ά κ ρ ισ η α ν ε ί ν α ι α υ θ α ί ρ ε τ η .
In this instance, the Presidentof the Court found that it was possible for the contested measure to amount to ameasure producing legal effects beyond the framework solely of the internalorganisation of the Parliament's work, since it denied certain Members of thatinstitution the possibility of exercisingtheir parliamentary mandate in the sameconditions as Members belonging to a political group and therefore preventedthem from participating as fully as such Members in the process for the adoptionof Community measures.
Ενπροκειμένω, δ ε ν μ π ο ρ ε ί ν α α π ο κ λ ε ισ τ ε ί τ ο ε ν δ ε χ ό μ ε ν ο ν α π ρ ο έ β η τ ο Κ ο ι ν ο β ο ύ λ ι ο σ ε δ υ σ μ ε ν ε ί ς δ ι α κ ρ ί σ ε ι ς σ ε β ά ρ ο ς τ ω ν β ο υ λ ε υ τ ώ ν π ο υ ε π ι θ υ μ ο ύ σ α ν ν α σ υ σ τ ή σ ο υ ν τ η ν π ο λ ι τ ικ ή ο μ ά δ α Τ Ο Α Β .
In addition, he held that the contested measure was,prima facie, of direct and individual concern to the members seeking itsannulment, in particular since it prevented them from belonging to the Technical Group of Independent Members. The application for interim relief was thereforedeclared admissible.
Συναφώς, ο Π ρ ό ε δ ρ ο ς τ ο υ Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο υ δ ι α π ί σ τ ω σ ε ό τ ι τ ο Κ ο ι ν ο β ο ύ λ ι ο , μ ε τ η σ ύ ν θ ε σ η τ ο υ π ο υ π ρ ο έ κ υ ψ ε α π ό τ ι ς τ ε λ ε υ τ α ί ε ς ε κ λ ο γ έ ς , δ ε ν ε ίχ ε α ν τ ι τ α χ θ ε ί σ τ η σ ύ σ τ α σ η ά λ λ η ς π ο λ ι τ ικ ή ς ο μ ά δ α ς , τ η ν ο π ο ία ο ι α ι τ ο ύ ν τ ε ς π α ρ ο υ σ ία ζ α ν ω ς μ ικ τ ή ο μ ά δ α .
As regards the pleas establishing a prima facie case for the grant of the reliefsought, the President of the Court stated that an infringement of the principle ofequal treatment could not be ruled out.
Ε π ε ι δ ή π λ η ρ ο ύ ν τ α ν κ α ι η π ρ ο ϋ π ό θ ε σ η τ ο υ κ α τ ε π ε ί γ ο ν τ ο ς , η δ ε α ν α σ τ ο λ ή ε κ τ ε λ έ σ ε ω ς τ η ς π ρ ο σ β α λ λ ο μ έ ν η ς π ρ ά ξ ε ω ς μ έ χ ρ ι ς ό τ ο υ τ ο Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο υ α π ο φ α ν θ ε ί ε π ί τ η ς κ ύ ρ ι α ς π ρ ο σ φ υ γ ή ς δ ε ν μ π ο ρ ο ύ σ ε ν α π α ρ α β λ ά ψ ε ι τ η ν ο ρ γ ά ν ω σ η τ ω ν υ π η ρ ε σ ιώ ν τ ο υ κ α θ ο ύ κ ο ι ν ο τ ικ ο ύ
While Article 29 of the Rules of Procedure of the Parliament did not prevent it from making different assessments,in the light of all the relevant facts, in relation to the various statements for thesetting up of a political group submitted to the President of the Parliament, adifference in treatment of that kind nevertheless amounted to unlawfuldiscrimination if it appearedarbitrary. In this instance, it could not be ruled outthat the Parliamentarbitrarily discriminated against the Members wishing to set r39r39
Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο υ δ ι έ τ α ξ ε τ η ν α ν α σ τ ο λ ή οργάνου, ο Π ρ ό ε δ ρ ο ς τ ο υ ε κ τ ε λ έ σ ε ω ς τ η ς π ρ ά ξ ε ω ς .
up the Technical Group of Independent Members. In this connection, the President of the Court recorded that the Parliament, as constituted following thelast elections,did not opposethe setting up of another political group presented by the applicants as a mixed group.
Π ρ ω τ ο δ ικ ε ί ο υ
Composition of the Court of First Instance
(Σ ε ι ρ ά π ρ ω τ ο κ ό λ λ ο υ στις 30 Σεπτεμβρίου
(Orderofprecedence as at 30 September
Μ.
W W
ΜΟΙΙΙΉΚαπιοδ, δικαστής, Μ.
Iudge R. Garcia-Valdecasas y Fernändez; Judge J.D. Cooke; Judge A. Potocki; President
Ι36 & 6Γ, δικαστής, Κ. Ιχ η α ε Π δ , δικαστής.
B. Vesterdorf; Judge R.M. Moura Ramos; Judge M. Jaeger; Judge K. Lernerts.