You are on page 1of 2

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
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;