The Annual Report provides an overview of the activities of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance during 1997.
In 1997 the Court of Justice devoted considerable efforts to ensuring that the cases submitted to it were dealt with expeditiously. These efforts have proved to be fruitful:
In the same year the Court of Justice delivered 168 preliminary rulings in response to questions submitted to it by national courts. A few examples will demonstrate the importance of this procedure for the construction of the Community.
The Court of Justice ruled on the validity under Community law of the Swedish Law on alcohol, which is designed to limit the consumption of that product. It ascertained that the monopoly established in Sweden was not used to favour domestic products. It then found that the public-health objective pursued was legitimate. As a result, it held that the monopoly was compatible with the EC Treaty. On the other hand, it condemned the system of licences, which constituted a barrier to trade.
Equal treatment for men and women in the field of employment is also a subject governed by Community law. Last year, the Court of Justice held that a provision giving female job applicants an advantage over male applicants could be justified where it contained a clause guaranteeing an individual examination of each case for the purpose of setting aside the priority accorded to female applicants where one or more criteria relating to the person of the male applicant swing the balance in his favour.
Rights to social security benefits directly affect freedom of movement for workers and their families. In a number of judgments the Court of Justice applied the basic principles in this matter. Thus, the Member States remain competent to adopt their social policy and to fix the level of social security benefits, but they are not entitled to bring about discrimination against nationals of other Member States. For their part, Community citizens who move within the Community, be they workers, students or pensioners, do not lose certain of their rights, for example with regard to sickness insurance or pensions, merely because they have changed their residence.
As regards direct actions brought before the Court of Justice, mention may be made of the judgment, on an application by the Commission, by which the Court condemned France for the passivity displayed by its authorities for years where private individuals blockaded the transportation of fruit and vegetables from other Member States. The Court held that the principle of the free movement of goods not only prohibited restrictions on trade created by States but also prohibited States from abstaining from taking the measures required to deal with obstacles irrespective of their origin.
With regard to the import and export of gas and electricity, the Commission had asked the Court of Justice to condemn the monopoly systems maintained in four States, on the ground that they constituted obstacles to the common market. In their defence, the States concerned contended that their system was necessary for the operation of the service of general economic interest constituted by the distribution of energy. The Court dismissed the actions brought by the Commission, holding that the Treaty granted a measure of discretion to the States as regards the manner in which they entrusted certain undertakings with the operation of services of general economic interest.
Lastly, under the appeals procedure judgments of the Court of First Instance may be challenged before the Court of Justice.
An increasing number of appeals are being dismissed by the Court of Justice by way of order, on the ground that they are manifestly inadmissible or unfounded. This trend shows that the appeals procedure is not intended to evolve into a system of mechanical and general appeals against the judgments of the Court of First Instance. Appeals thus remain a special procedure centred on the examination of points of law only.
During 1997 the Court of First Instance disposed of 173 cases. In addition, it made preparations for hearings in four series of cases in competition matters (involving 82 cases in all) in the fields of cartonboard (hearings held from 28 June to 10 July 1997), cement, steel beams and PVC. The treatment of these four groups of cases called for the deployment of considerable resources.
Large groups of new cases were received, bringing the total number of cases brought before the Court of First Instance in 1997 to 624 (as against 220 in the previous year). 295 of these cases were brought by customs agents, essentially to obtain reparation for the damage they claimed to have sustained as a result of the completion of the internal market prescribed by the Single European Act.
A few examples will demonstrate the importance and the variety of numerous cases brought before the Court of First Instance.
In the field of competition, a judgment concerning undertakings supplying and hiring mobile cranes centred on the time-limits to be observed by the Commission in dealing with a case brought before it. The Court of First Instance held that compliance by the Commission of a reasonable time-limit for the adoption of decisions closing administrative procedures in competition matters constituted a general principle of Community law.
In the field of State aid, the Court of First Instance had to rule on a tax concession granted by the French State in favour of the Post Office, an establishment which also engaged in competitive activities. The Court held that, by virtue of the rules relating to undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest (Article 90(2) of the EC Treaty), the concession was not caught by the prohibition on aid. It was designed only to offset the additional costs arising out of the performance of the particular task of the Post Office (servicing the entire national territory and participating in regional planning) and had to be granted so that that undertaking could perform its obligations as a public service under conditions of economic equilibrium. In March 1998 the Court of Justice dismissed an appeal against that judgment as unfounded.
The numerous actions for damages in the field of milk quotas brought by farmers in several countries following a judgment of the Court of Justice constitute a category of their own. The farmers were temporarily prevented from carrying on their business. The Court of First Instance has been disposing of each of these cases in turn, ruling in particular on the conditions under which the right to damages is barred through lapse of time and on the situation of a category of producers not covered by the judgment of the Court of Justice mentioned above.
As regards cases not closely connected with a specific field of economic law, the Court of First Instance annulled, on application by an Austrian trader, a regulation adopted on the eve of the entry into force of the Agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA Agreement) and concerning the "withdrawal of tariff concessions". It concluded that, since the Communities had deposited their instrument of ratification of the Agreement and that the date of the entry into force of the Agreement was known, that trader was entitled to contest any measure contrary to the provisions of the Agreement which, after its entry into force, were to have direct effect.
The Court of First Instance also analysed the position of undertakings which, penalised by a decision which they had failed to contest in good time, sought a review of that decision on the basis of a judgment of the Court of Justice given on applications by other addressees of that decision and partially annulling it. According to the Court of First Instance, the Commission is required to carry out such a review where its finding of an unlawful practice is annulled on the ground that the existence of that practice has not been established and where, on the basis of identical facts, the decision charges the undertaking concerned with having been party to the practice. Should the review disclose that the finding with respect to the undertaking in question was unlawful, the Commission is also required to refund to it any fines paid by it. An appeal against that judgment has been brought before the Court of Justice.
Lastly, as regards public access to documents held by the Community institutions, the Court of First Instance confirmed and built upon the line of case-law beginning with its judgment in 1995 in Carvel and Guardian Newspapers v Council. Where it is minded to refuse access to certain documents in order to protect the confidentiality of its deliberations, the Commission must (according to the relevant decision of that institution, identical, on this point, to the corresponding decision of the Council) strike a balance between the interest it may have in preserving confidentiality and the citizen's interest in obtaining the access which he seeks. The problem of access to documents of the institutions is giving rise to an increasing number of cases before the Court of First Instance.
The Annual Report is but one of a range of instruments used by the Court of Justice for disseminating information. We would draw your attention in particular to our Internet site through which the institution distributes, in the eleven official languages, all the judgments of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance. You will also find there a diary of their judicial activities as well as the press releases and other information of general interest.
Unofficial document for the use of the media, not binding on the Court of Justice
This press release is available in all the official languages
For further information, please contact Tom Kennedy, tel: (352) 4303 3355; fax: (352) 4303 2500 or consult our Internet page http://www.curia.eu.int