JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

17 September 1997(1)

(Meaning of 'national court or tribunal‘ for the purposes of Article 177 of theTreaty — Procedures for the award of public service contracts — Directive92/50/EEC — National review body)

In Case C-54/96,

REFERENCE to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty by theVergabeüberwachungsausschuß des Bundes (Germany) for a preliminary ruling inthe proceedings pending before that body between

Dorsch Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH

and

Bundesbaugesellschaft Berlin mbH

on the interpretation of Article 41 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts(OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1),

THE COURT,

composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, G.F. Mancini, J.C. Moitinho deAlmeida, J.L. Murray and L. Sevón (Presidents of Chambers), C.N. Kakouris,P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch,P. Jann (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen, Judges,

Advocate General: G. Tesauro,

Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,

after considering the written observations submitted on behalf of:

• Dorsch Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH, by Franz Günter Siebeck,Rechsanwalt, Munich,
  
  
• the German Government, by Ernst Röder, Ministerialrat at the FederalMinistry for Economic Affairs, and Bernd Kloke, Oberregierungsrat at thesame ministry, acting as Agents,
  
  
• the Commission of the European Communities, by Hendrik van Lier, LegalAdviser, and Claudia Schmidt, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents,

having regard to the Report for the Hearing,

after hearing the oral observations of Dorsch Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH,of the German Government and of the Commission at the hearing on 28 January1997,

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 15 May 1997,

gives the following

Judgment

1. By order of 5 February 1996, received at the Court on 21 February 1996, theVergabeüberwachungsausschuß des Bundes (Federal Public Procurement AwardsSupervisory Board, hereinafter 'the Federal Supervisory Board‘) referred to theCourt for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EC Treaty a question onthe interpretation of Article 41 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts(OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1).
   
   
2. The question has been raised in proceedings between Dorsch ConsultIngenieurgesellschaft mbH (hereinafter 'Dorsch Consult‘) andBundesbaugesellschaft Berlin mbH (hereinafter 'the awarding authority‘)concerning a procedure for the award of a service contract.
   
   
3. On 28 June 1995 the awarding authority published in the Official Journal of theEuropean Communities a notice advertising the award of a contract for architecturaland construction engineering services. On 25 August 1995 Dorsch Consultsubmitted its tender to the awarding authority. In all, 18 tenders were received, ofwhich seven, including that of Dorsch Consult, were chosen for furtherconsideration. On 30 November 1995, two companies, together with an architect,were chosen to form a working party to perform the services which were thesubject of the contract. The contract itself was signed on 12 January 1996. DorschConsult was informed on 25 January 1996 that its tender was not the mostadvantageous economically.
   
   
4. Having learned that the awarding authority had not chosen it for the contract butbefore its tender was formally rejected, Dorsch Consult had applied, on 14December 1995, to the Bundesministerium für Raumordnung, Bauwesen undStädtebau (Federal Ministry for Regional Planning, Building and Urban Planning),as the body responsible for reviewing public procurement awards(Vergabeprüfstelle), seeking to have the contract-awarding procedure stopped andthe contract awarded to it. It considered that, in concluding the contract withanother undertaking, the awarding authority had acted in breach of both Directive92/50 and Paragraph 57a(1) of the Haushaltsgrundsätzegesetz (Budget PrinciplesLaw, hereinafter 'the HGrG‘). By decision of 20 December 1995, the review bodyheld that it had no competence in the matter on the ground that, under Paragraphs57a and 57b of the HGrG, it had no power to review the award of contracts whenthey related to services.
   
   
5. In those circumstances, on 27 December 1995 Dorsch Consult lodged anapplication for a determination by the Federal Supervisory Board on the groundthat the review body had wrongly declined jurisdiction. It stated that, in so far asCouncil Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of thelaws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of reviewprocedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ 1989L 395, p. 33) had not been transposed, it was directly applicable and had to becomplied with by the review bodies.
   
   
6. The Federal Supervisory Board found that the Federal Republic of Germany hadnot yet transposed Directive 92/50. Although a circular had been issued by theFederal Ministry for Economic Affairs on 11 June 1993 stating that the directivewas directly applicable and that it had to be applied by the administration, it couldnot be regarded as a proper transposition of the directive. According to theFederal Supervisory Board, where public service contracts are concerned, Germandomestic law does not empower a review body to determine whether the provisionsgoverning public procurement have been complied with. It is quite possible thatthe provisions of Directive 92/50 have direct effect. Finally, the FederalSupervisory Board is unsure whether, by virtue of Article 41 of Directive 92/50, thecompetence of existing review bodies also applies directly to the award of publicservice contracts.
   
   
7. The Federal Supervisory Board therefore suspended proceedings and referred thefollowing question to the Court of Justice:
   
   'Is Article 41 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 to be interpretedto the effect that, after 30 June 1993, the bodies set up by the Member Stateswhich, under Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989, are competentto review procedures for the award of public contracts falling within the scope ofDirectives 71/305/EEC and 77/62/EEC are also competent to review procedures forthe award of public service contracts within the meaning of Directive 92/50/EECin order to determine whether alleged infringements of Community publicprocurement law or of domestic rules enacted in implementation of that law havetaken place?‘
   
   Legal background
   
   
8. The purpose of Directive 92/50 is to regulate the award of public service contracts.It applies to contracts having a value above a certain limit. As far as the matterof legal protection is concerned, Article 41 provides:
   
   'Article 1(1) of Council Directive 89/665/EEC ... shall be replaced by the following:
   
   ”1. The Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that, as regardscontract award procedures falling within the scope of Directives 71/305/EEC,77/62/EEC, and 92/50/EEC, decisions taken by the contracting authorities may bereviewed effectively and, in particular, as rapidly as possible in accordance with theconditions set out in the following Articles and, in particular, Article 2(7) on thegrounds that such decisions have infringed Community law in the field of publicprocurement or nation[al] rules implementing that law."‘
   
   .
   
   
9. In accordance with Article 44(1), Directive 92/50 had to be transposed by theMember States before 1 June 1993.
   
   
10. Article 2(8) of Directive 89/665 provides:
    
    'Where bodies responsible for review procedures are not judicial in character,written reasons for their decisions shall always be given. Furthermore, in such acase, provision must be made to guarantee procedures whereby any allegedly illegalmeasure taken by the review body or any alleged defect in the exercise of thepowers conferred on it can be the subject of judicial review or review by anotherbody which is a court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 177 of the EECTreaty and independent of both the contracting authority and the review body.
    
    The members of such an independent body shall be appointed and leave officeunder the same conditions as members of the judiciary as regards the authorityresponsible for their appointment, their period of office, and their removal. At leastthe President of this independent body shall have the same legal and professionalqualifications as members of the judiciary. The independent body shall take itsdecisions following a procedure in which both sides are heard, and these decisionsshall, by means determined by each Member State, be legally binding.‘
    
    
11. Directive 89/665 was transposed into German law by a Law of 26 November 1993(BGBl. I, p. 1928), which supplemented the HGrG by adding Paragraphs 57a to57c.
    
    
12. Paragraph 57a(1) of the HGrG provides:
    
    'In order to meet obligations arising from directives of the European Communities,the Federal Government shall regulate, by means of regulations, with the assent ofthe Bundesrat, the award of public supply contracts, public works contracts andpublic service contracts and the procedures for awarding public service contracts...‘
    
    
13. Paragraph 57b(1) of the HGrG makes provision for the procedures for awardingpublic supply contracts, public works contracts and public service contractsmentioned in Paragraph 57a(1) to be reviewed by review bodies. Under Paragraph57b(2), the Federal Government is to adopt, in the form of regulations, with theassent of the Bundesrat, the provisions governing the competence of those reviewbodies. According to subparagraph (3), a review body must initiate a reviewprocedure if there is evidence of a breach of procurement rules applicable undera regulation adopted pursuant to Paragraph 57a. In particular, it must initiate thatprocedure where a person who has, or had, an interest in a particular contractclaims that the aforementioned provisions were contravened.
    
    
14. According to Paragraph 57b(4) of the HGrG, the review body must determinewhether the provisions adopted pursuant to Paragraph 57a have been compliedwith. It may compel the awarding authority to annul unlawful measures ordecisions or to take lawful measures or decisions. It may also provisionally suspenda procedure for the award of a contract. Under Paragraph 57b(5), a review bodymay require the awarding authority to provide the information necessary for it tocarry out its task. Subparagraph (6) provides that actions for damages in the eventof breach of the provisions applicable in relation to the award of contracts are tobe brought before the ordinary courts.
    
    
15. Paragraph 57c(1) of the HGrG provides that the Federation and the Länder musteach establish a supervisory board, performing its functions independently and onits own responsibility, to supervise procedures for the award of contracts in thefields concerning them. According to subparagraphs (2), (3) and (4) of thatprovision, each supervisory board is to sit in chambers composed of a chairman, anofficial assessor and a lay assessor, who are to be independent and subject only toobservance of the law. The chairman and one of the assessors must be publicofficials. As regards annulment or withdrawal of their appointment and theirindependence and dismissal, various provisions of the Richtergesetz (Law on theJudiciary) apply by analogy. As regards the annulment or withdrawal of a laymember's appointment, certain provisions of the Richtergesetz also apply byanalogy. Where a lay member commits a serious breach of his duties, hisappointment must be annulled. The term of office of a supervisory board's laymembers is five years.
    
    
16. Under subparagraph (5), the supervisory board is to determine the legality ofdeterminations made by review bodies but it does not review the way in which theyascertain the facts. Where a determination is found to be unlawful, the supervisoryboard directs the review body to make a fresh determination taking account of itsown legal findings. Paragraph 57c(6) of the HGrG provides that any personclaiming that the provisions governing the award of public contracts have beeninfringed may make application to the supervisory board within a period of fourweeks following the relevant determination of the review body.
    
    
17. Paragraph 57c(7) of the HGrG establishes a Federal Supervisory Board(Vergabeüberwachungsausschuß des Bundes). Its official members are thechairman and assessors from the decision-making departments of theBundeskartellamt (Federal Cartel Office). The president of the Bundeskartellamtdecides on the composition of the Federal Supervisory Board and the formationand composition of its chambers. He appoints lay assessors and their deputies ona proposal from the leading public-law trade boards. He also exercisesadministrative supervisory control on behalf of the Federal Government. TheFederal Supervisory Board adopts its own internal rules of procedure.
    
    
18. Pursuant to Paragraph 57a of the HGrG the Federal Government adopted aregulation on the award of contracts. This regulation is, however, applicable onlyto supply contracts and works contracts and not to contracts for services. Directive92/50 has not yet been transposed by the Federal Republic of Germany.
    
    
19. Pursuant to Paragraphs 57b and 57c of the HGrG, the Federal Government hasadopted a regulation on the procedure for review of public procurement awards(Verordnung über das Nachprüfungsvesfahren für öffentliche Verträge, BGBl. I1994, p. 324). Paragraph 2(3) of the regulation provides:
    
    'The review body's determination regarding the awarding authority shall be givenin writing, contain a statement of reasons and be notified without delay. Thereview body shall send without delay to the person claiming that there has been abreach of public procurement provisions the text of its determination, shall drawattention to the possibility of making application for a determination by thesupervisory board within a period of four weeks and shall name the competentsupervisory board.‘
    
    
20. Paragraph 3 provides:
    
    '(1)    Procedure before the Public Procurement Awards Supervisory Board shallbe governed by Paragraph 57c of the Haushaltsgrundsätzegesetz and by thisregulation according to the rules of procedure which the board shall adopt.
    
    (2)    The Public Procurement Awards Supervisory Board shall be obliged, underArticle 177 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, to makea reference to the Court of Justice of the European Communities when itconsiders that a preliminary ruling on a question relating to theinterpretation of that Treaty or to the validity and interpretation of a legalact adopted on that basis is necessary in order to enable it to make itsdetermination.
    
    (3)    Before a chamber makes any determination, the parties to the procedurebefore the procurement review body shall be heard.
    
    (4)    A chamber shall not be empowered to suspend a procedure for the awardof a contract or to give other directions concerning a procedure for theaward of a contract.
    
    (5)    A chamber shall reach its determination by an absolute majority of votes. Determinations shall be in writing, contain a statement of reasons and shallbe sent to the parties without delay.‘
    
    
21. The rules of procedure of the Federal Supervisory Board regulate the organizationand allocation of cases and the conduct of procedure, which consists of a hearingto which the persons concerned are called, and the conditions governingdeterminations of the Federal Supervisory Board.
    
    Admissibility
    
    
22. Before the question submitted by the national court is addressed, it is necessary toexamine whether the Federal Supervisory Board, in the procedure which led to thisreference for a preliminary ruling, is to be regarded as a court or tribunal withinthe meaning of Article 177 of the Treaty. That question must be distinguishedfrom the question whether the Federal Supervisory Board fulfils the conditions laiddown in Article 2(8) of Directive 89/665, which is not in point in this case.
    
    
23. In order to determine whether a body making a reference is a court or tribunal forthe purposes of Article 177 of the Treaty, which is a question governed byCommunity law alone, the Court takes account of a number of factors, such aswhether the body is established by law, whether it is permanent, whether itsjurisdiction is compulsory, whether its procedure is inter partes, whether it appliesrules of law and whether it is independent (see, in particular, the judgments in Case61/65 Vaassen (neé Göbbels) [1966] ECR 261; Case 14/86 Pretore di Salò v Personsunkown [1987] ECR 2545, paragraph 7; Case 109/88 Danfoss [1989] ECR 3199,paragraphs 7 and 8; Case C-393/92 Almelo and Others [1994] ECR I-1477; andCase C-111/94 Job Centre [1995] ECR I-3361, paragraph 9).
    
    
24. As regards the question of establishment by law, the Commission states that theHGrG is a framework budgetary law which does not give rise to rights orobligations for citizens as legal persons. It points out that the Federal SupervisoryBoard's action is confined to reviewing determinations made by review bodies. However, in the field of public service contracts, there is, as yet, no competentreview body. The Commission therefore concludes that in such matters the FederalSupervisory Board has no basis in law on which it can act.
    
    
25. It is sufficient to note in this regard that the Federal Supervisory Board wasestablished by Paragraph 57c(7) of the HGrG. Its establishment by law cannottherefore be disputed. In determining establishment by law, it is immaterial thatdomestic legislation has not conferred on the Federal Supervisory Board powersin the specific area of public service contracts.
    
    
26. Nor is there any doubt about the permanent existence of the Federal SupervisoryBoard.
    
    
27. The Commission also submits that the Federal Supervisory Board does not havecompulsory jurisdiction, a condition which, in its view, may mean two things: eitherthat the parties must be required to apply to the relevant review body forsettlement of their dispute or that determinations of that body are to be binding. The Commission, adopting the second interpretation, concludes that Germanlegislation does not provide for the determinations made by the FederalSupervisory Board to be enforceable.
    
    
28. It must be stated first of all that Paragraph 57c of the HGrG establishes thesupervisory board as the only body for reviewing the legality of determinationsmade by review bodies. In order to establish a breach of the provisions governingpublic procurement, application must be made to the supervisory board.
    
    
29. Secondly, under Paragraph 57c(5) of the HGrG, when the supervisory board findsthat determinations made by a review body are unlawful, it directs that body tomake a fresh determination, in conformity with the supervisory board's findings onpoints of law. It follows that determinations of the supervisory board are binding.
    
    
30. The Commission also submits that since, according to the Federal SupervisoryBoard's own evidence, procedure before that body is not inter partes, it cannot beregarded as a court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 177 of the Treaty.
    
    
31. It must be reiterated that the requirement that the procedure before the hearingbody concerned must be inter partes is not an absolute criterion. Besides, underParagraph 3(3) of the Verordnung über das Nachprüfungsverfahren für öffentlicheAufträge, the parties to the procedure before the procurement review body mustbe heard before any determination is made by the chamber concerned.
    
    
32. According to the Commission, the criterion relating to the application of rules oflaw is not met either, because, under Paragraph 57c of the HGrG and Paragraph3(1) of the Verordnung über das Nachprüfungsverfahren für öffentliche Aufträge,procedure before the Federal Supervisory Board is governed by rules of procedurewhich it itself adopts, which do not take effect in relation to third parties and whichare not published.
    
    
33. It is, however, undisputed that the Federal Supervisory Board is required to applyprovisions governing the award of public contracts which are laid down inCommunity directives and in domestic regulations adopted to transpose them. Furthermore, general procedural requirements, such as the duty to hear the parties,to make determinations by an absolute majority of votes and to give reasons forthem are laid down in Paragraph 3 of the Verordnung über dasNachprüfungsverfahren für öffentliche Aufträge, which is published in theBundesgesetzblatt. Consequently, the Federal Supervisory Board applies rules oflaw.
    
    
34. Finally, both Dorsch Consult and the Commission consider that the FederalSupervisory Board is not independent. They point out that it is linked to theorganizational structure of the Bundeskartellamt, which is itself subject tosupervision by the Ministry for Economic Affairs, that the term of office of thechairman and the official assessors is not fixed and that the provisions forguaranteeing impartiality apply only to lay members.
    
    
35. It must be observed first of all that, according to Paragraph 57c(1) of the HGrG,the supervisory board carries out its task independently and under its ownresponsibility. According to Paragraph 57c(2) of the HGrG, the members of thechambers are independent and subject only to observance of the law.
    
    
36. Under Paragraph 57c(3) of the HGrG, the main provisions of the Richtergesetzconcerning annulment or withdrawal of their appointments and concerning theirindependence and removal from office apply by analogy to official members of thechambers. In general, the provisions of the Richtergesetz concerning annulmentand withdrawal of judges' appointments apply also to lay members. Furthermore,the impartiality of lay members is ensured by Paragraph 57c(2) of the HGrG, whichprovides that they must not hear cases in which they themselves were involvedthrough participation in the decision-making process regarding the award of acontract or in which they are, or were, tenderers or representatives of tenderers.
    
    
37. It must also be pointed out that, in this particular instance, the Federal SupervisoryBoard exercises a judicial function, for it can find that a determination made by areview body is unlawful and it can direct the review body to make a freshdetermination.
    
    
38. It follows from all the foregoing that the Federal Supervisory Board, in theprocedure which led to this reference for a preliminary ruling, is to be regarded asa court or tribunal within the meaning of Article 177 of the Treaty, so that thequestion it has referred to the Court is admissible.
    
    Substance
    
    
39. By its question, the Federal Supervisory Board is asking in effect whether it followsfrom Article 41 of Directive 92/50 that, if that directive has not been transposed bythe end of the period laid down for that purpose, the appeal bodies of the MemberStates having competence in relation to procedures for the award of public workscontracts and public supply contracts may also hear appeals relating to proceduresfor the award of public service contracts.
    
    
40. It must be stated first of all that it is for the legal system of each Member State todetermine which court or tribunal has jurisdiction to hear disputes involvingindividual rights derived from Community law. However, it is the Member States'responsibility to ensure that those rights are effectively protected in each case. Subject to that reservation, it is not for the Court to involve itself in the resolutionof questions of jurisdiction to which the classification of certain legal situationsbased on Community law may give rise in the national judicial system (judgmentin Case C-446/93 SEIM [1996] ECR I-73, paragraph 32).
    
    
41. Although Article 41 of Directive 92/50 requires the Member States to adopt themeasures necessary to ensure effective review in the field of public servicecontracts, it does not indicate which national bodies are to be the competent bodiesfor this purpose or whether these bodies are to be the same as those which theMember States have designated in the field of public works contracts and publicsupply contracts.
    
    
42. It is, however, common ground that Paragraphs 57a to 57c of the HGrG weredesigned to transpose Directive 89/665 and that Paragraph 57a was to be the basisfor the transposition of Directive 92/50 which the Federal Government has still notundertaken.
    
    
43. That being the case, it must be reiterated first of all that the Member States'obligation arising from a directive to achieve the result envisaged by the directiveand their duty under Article 5 of the EC Treaty to take all appropriate measures,whether general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of that obligation is binding onall the authorities of Member States, including, for matters within their jurisdiction,the courts. It follows that, when applying national law, whether adopted before orafter the directive, the national court having to interpret that law must do so, as faras possible, in the light of the wording and the purpose of the directive so as toachieve the result it has in view and thereby comply with the third paragraph ofArticle 189 of the EC Treaty (see the judgments in Case C-106/89 Marleasing[1990] ECR I-4135, paragraph 8; Case C-334/92 Wagner Miret [1993] ECR I-6911,paragraph 20; and in Case C-91/92 Faccini Dori [1994] ECR I-3325, paragraph 26).
    
    
44. Secondly, the question of the designation of a body competent to hear appeals inrelation to public service contracts is relevant even where Directive 92/50 has notbeen transposed. Where a Member State has failed to take the implementingmeasures required or has adopted measures which do not conform to a directive,the Court has recognized, subject to certain conditions, the right of individuals torely in law on a directive as against a defaulting Member State. Although thisminimum guarantee cannot justify a Member State absolving itself from taking indue time implementing measures sufficient to meet the purpose of each directive(see, in particular, the judgment in Case C-253/98 Commission v Germany [1996]ECR I-2423, paragraph 13), it may nevertheless have the effect of enablingindividuals to rely, as against a Member State, on the substantive provisions ofDirective 92/50.
    
    
45. If the relevant domestic provisions cannot be interpreted in conformity withDirective 92/50, the persons concerned, using the appropriate domestic lawprocedures, may claim compensation for the damage incurred owing to the failureto transpose the directive within the time prescribed (see, in particular, thejudgment in Joined Cases C-178/94, C-179/94, C-188/94, C-189/94 and C-190/94Dillenkofer and Others [1996] ECR I-4845).
    
    
46. The answer to be given to the question referred to the Court must accordingly bethat it does not follow from Article 41 of Directive 92/50 that, where that directivehas not been transposed by the end of the period laid down for that purpose, theappeal bodies of the Member States having competence in relation to proceduresfor the award of public works contracts and public supply contracts may also hearappeals relating to procedures for the award of public service contracts. However,in order to observe the requirement that domestic law must be interpreted inconformity with Directive 92/50 and the requirement that the rights of individualsmust be protected effectively, the national court must determine whether therelevant provisions of its domestic law allow recognition of a right for individualsto bring an appeal in relation to awards of public service contracts. Incircumstances such as those arising in the present case, the national court mustdetermine in particular whether such a right of appeal may be exercised before thesame bodies as those established to hear appeals concerning the award of publicsupply contracts and public works contracts.
    
    Costs
    
    
47. The costs incurred by the German Government and by the Commission of theEuropean Communities, which have submitted observations to the Court, are notrecoverable. Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings,a step in the proceedings pending before the national tribunal, the decision on costsis a matter for that body.
    
    On those grounds,

    THE COURT,

    in answer to the question referred to it by the Vergabeüberwachungsausschuß desBundes by order of 5 February 1996, hereby rules:
    
    It does not follow from Article 41 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contractsthat, where that directive has not been transposed by the end of the period laiddown for that purpose, the appeal bodies of the Member States having competencein relation to procedures for the award of public works contracts and public supplycontracts may also hear appeals relating to procedures for the award of publicservice contracts. However, in order to observe the requirement that domestic lawmust be interpreted in conformity with Directive 92/50 and the requirement thatthe rights of individuals must be protected effectively, the national court mustdetermine whether the relevant provisions of its domestic law allow recognition ofa right for individuals to bring an appeal in relation to awards of public servicecontracts. In circumstances such as those arising in the present case, the nationalcourt must determine in particular whether such a right of appeal may beexercised before the same bodies as those established to hear appeals concerningthe award of public supply contracts and public works contracts.
    
    
    

Rodríguez Iglesias        Mancini        Moitinho de Almeida     Murray        Sevón        Kakouris        Kapteyn Gulmann        Edward        Puissochet                Hirsch     Jann        Ragnemalm        Wathelet        Schintgen

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 17 September 1997.

R. Grass

Rodríguez Iglesias

Registrar

President

1: Language of the case: German.