You are on page 1of 2

C 226/16 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 7.8.

1999

Appeal brought on 21 May 1999 by Karola Gluiber against Pleas in law and main arguments
the order made on 16 March 1999 by the First Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-
ties in Case T-147/98 Karola Gluiber versus Council of The appellant is contesting an order by which the Court of First
the European Union and Commission of the European Instance, without prior notice to the respondents, dismissed as
Communities manifestly inadmissible her applications for

(Case C-188/99 P) — a declaration that certain individual measures taken by


German authorities and German courts are null and void;

(1999/C 226/25) — alternatively, an order requiring the respondent to retract


and terminate those measures in accordance with the rules
An appeal against the order made on 16 March 1999 by the laid down by the EC Treaty.
First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-147/98 Karola Gluiber versus Council
of the European Union and Commission of the European She complains that the principle of the right to a fair hearing
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the has been violated,
European Communities on 21 May 1999 by Karola Gluiber,
represented by Dieter Rogalla, Rechtsanwalt, with an address She infers that her claim is admissible from the fact that the
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marguit Commission is under an obligation to monitor the application
Capus-Leelare, 117 Avenue Gaston Diderich, L-1420 Luxem- of Directive 76/207/EEC in all Member States and to object to
bourg. specific defects until such time as they are eliminated.

The appellant claims that the Court should:


(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.
1. set aside the order made by the Court of First Instance of (2) OJ L 39 of 14.2.1976, p. 40.
the European Communities on 16 March 1999 in Case
T-147/98 (1);

2. declare null and void the individual measures which


unlawfully discriminate against the appellant on the
ground of her sex;

3. order the respondent to retract and terminate, in accord-


ance with the rules laid down by the Treaty on European Action brought on 21 May 1999 by the Commission of
Union, the discriminatory measures taken against the the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain
appellant by the Federal Republic of Germany, as a Member
State of the Community, and by its federal organs (the
Länder); (Case C-189/99)

4. order the respondent to pay to the appellant the total sum


of DM 4 877 (four thousand eight hundred and seventy (1999/C 226/26)
seven German marks) plus interest in respect of periods to
be fixed, being the expense incurred by the appellant in An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the proceedings brought by her to no avail before the the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 May
German courts; 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Götz zur Hausen, Legal Adviser and Gregorio
5. order the respondent to pay the costs of the present Valero Jordana, a member of its Legal Service, with an address
proceedings; for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
Cruz of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre.
6. alternatively, stay the proceedings pursuant to Article
82a(1)(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice
in order to enable a preliminary ruling to be obtained from The applicant claims that the Court should:
the European Court of Human Rights concerning the
finding that the incomplete transposition into German law 1. declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
of Council Directive 76/207/EEC (2) infringes, as regards obligations under the third indent of Article 3(2), Article 4
the appellant: and Article 5 of Council Directive 90/313/EEC (1) of 7 June
1990 on the freedom of access to information on the
(a) Article 6 of the European Convention on Human environment by adopting legislation which fails to comply
Rights (‘ECHR’) with those provisions of that directive;

(b) Article 11 of the ECHR; 2. declare that the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its
obligations under Article 5 of the directive cited by
(c) Article 14 of the ECHR; and permitting high fees laid down by legislation bearing no
relation to that transposing the directive to be charged for
(d) Article 50 of the ECHR. the supply of information; and
7.8.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 226/17

3. order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. Commission of the European Communities, represented by
Mr Peter Oliver, Legal Adviser, acting as agent with an address
for service in Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gómez
de la Cruz, Centre Wagner.
Pleas in law and main arguments

— (Legislation does not comply) The Applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or


Law 38/1995 of 12 December (2) on the right of access to administrative provisions necessary to comply with
information on the environment does not comply with the Council Directive 96/43/EC (1) amending and consolidating
third indent of Article 3(2) in so far as it provides that the Directive 85/73/EEC (2) in order to ensure financing of
public authorities may refuse to provide information where veterinary inspections and controls on live animals and
it relates to files which have been the subject-matter of certain animal products and amending Directives
actions in the past. 90/675/EEC (3) and 91/496/EEC (4) and/or by failing to
inform the Commission thereof, Ireland has failed to fulfil
— Further, in imposing an obligation on the public authorities its obligations under that Directive, and
to respond to requests for information ‘as soon as possible
and within a period of two months’, and to ‘indicate its — order Ireland to pay the costs.
reasons for refusing requests for information’, Law
38/1995 recognises silence on the part of the adminis-
tration as being sufficient to be an implied rejection of a Pleas in law and main arguments
request for information.

— Finally, the necessary legal provisions are not in place Article 249 EC (ex Article 189), under which a directive shall
either to establish that information on the environment is be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member
free or to fix the prices to be charges for supplying such State, carries by implication an obligation on the Member
information; in the latter case, to ensure compliance with States to observe the period for compliance laid clown in the
Article 5 of the directive, the charges laid clown may not directive. That period has expired without Ireland having
exceed a reasonable cost. enacted the provisions necessary to comply with the directive
referred to in the conclusions of the Commission.
— The Commission considers that, in one specific case,
the Spanish authorities simply mechanically applied an (1) of 26 June 1996 (OJ L 162, 1.7.1996, p. 1).
internal rule on charges the application of which is (2) of 29 January 1985 on the financing of health inspections and
contrary to Article 5 of the directive because the charge, controls of fresh meat and poultrymeat (OJ L 32, 5.2.1985, p. 14).
which is payable prior to the requested documentation (3) of 10 December 1990 laying down the principles governing the
being provided, exceeds a reasonable cost. The Spanish organization of veterinary checks on products entering the
administration failed to take the directive into account and, Community from third countries (OJ L 373, 31.12.1990, p. 1).
as it acknowledged, the fee was charged not in respect of (4) of 15 July 1991 laying down the principles governing the
organization of veterinary checks on animals entering the Com-
the supply of information on the environment but pursu- munity from third countries and amending Directives
ant to national legislation on the supply of technical 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC and 90/675/EEC (OJ L 268, 24.9.1991,
studies, without regard being had to the definition of p. 56).
information relating to the environment given in Article
2(a) of the directive.

(1) OJ 1990 L 158, p. 56.


(2) Boletin Oficial de España 297, of 13.12.1995.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of


Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s Bench Division,
Crown Office, by order of that Court of 14 April 1999, in
the case of The Queen against Secretary of State for the
Home Department, Ex parte: Manjit Kaur

Action brought on 21 May 1999 by the Commission of (Case C-192/99)


the European Communities against Ireland
(1999/C 226/28)
(Case C-190/99) Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
(1999/C 226/27) Justice (England and Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, Crown
Office, of 14 April 1999, which was received at the Court
Registry on 25 May 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of of The Queen against Secretary of State for the Home
Justice of the European Communities on 21 May 1999 by the Department, Ex parte: Manjit Kaur, on the following questions: