You are on page 1of 1

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;