The Court of Justice was faced in 1999 with an ever-increasing number of proceedings: it brought 395 cases to a close, delivered 235 judgments and made 143 orders. The number of new cases also increased again (543 in 1999 as against 485 in 1998).
In 1999, 356 cases were brought before the Court of First Instance and 634 cases were determined by it. The number of applications for interim relief continues to increase (38 applications in 1999, compared with 26 in 1998).
The year was marked by reflection and reform. On 21 May 1999 the President of the Court of Justice submitted a discussion paper relating to the future of the Community judicial system to the Council of Ministers of Justice. The Court of First Instance, which celebrated its 10th anniversary, gave its first decision in the field of trade mark law and, following the amendment of its Rules of Procedure, gave a decision sitting as a single Judge for the first time.
That is the context for a summary of the case-law of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance in 1999.
Ever since the European Communities were established, their spheres of competence have been extended as the founding Treaties have been successively amended to include matters as varied as monetary policy, culture, employment and consumer protection. It is no surprise that that development is reflected in the nature of the cases submitted to the Court of Justice, as is demonstrated by the annual report of the institution for 1999.
It is not possible to give an exhaustive account of the vast number of issues which were dealt with in the Court's judgments and orders, but some of the main themes of the past year will be noted.
A number of judgments were delivered in cases relating to the legal basis of measures of the Community institutions. This branch of the case-law appears technical, but it is essential because it ensures that the balance of powers between the various institutions which is laid down by the Treaties is maintained. The Court ensured in particular that the European Parliament and the Council did not exceed their respective powers when legislating on matters such as the promotion of linguistic diversity, the protection of forests and the conclusion of international agreements.
The construction of a unified market within the Union was also at the heart of numerous cases, whether concerned with ensuring that goods may move freely from one State to another, that workers and their families may settle in another State without suffering disadvantage or that undertakings are able to offer their products or services on the various national markets.
The Court thus developed its case-law relating to the parallel import of medicinal products, which enables the market for such products in Europe to be unified to a certain extent (judgment in Rhône-Poulenc). With regard to freedom of movement for persons, the Court ensured that workers who move house in the course of a year from one State to another do not suffer unjustified disadvantage in the calculation of social security contributions (Terhoeve v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst). It also imposed strict limits on the ability of Member States to expel for life nationals of other Member States: such expulsions are justified only on the basis of the personal conduct of the person concerned and of the actual danger which he represents for the requirements of public policy of the State in question (judgment in Calfa). It found fault with numerous pieces of national tax legislation which, without justification, accorded unfavourable treatment to persons who had links with several States at the same time (for example, non-resident workers, in particular workers commuting across national borders, or subsidiaries of companies established in another State). Finally, the Court found fault with legislation of the Land of Tyrol (Austria) which was designed to control the number of second homes in that Land, because the legislation appeared to be applied more strictly in the case of foreign nationals than in the case of Austrians (Konle v Austria).
The Court acknowledged, however, that certain obstacles to trade between the Member States could be maintained, in particular where they were the unavoidable consequence of an absence of coordination or harmonisation of national laws. It thus found, with regard to the calculation of civil servants' pensions, that, in the absence of legislative intervention at Community level, it was not possible to regulate the treatment of certain persons who had moved within the Community (Nijhuis v Bestuur van het Landelijk Instituut Sociale Verzekeringen). The Court also granted the Member States a wide discretion to regulate games of chance (lotteries, betting and so forth) in their territory, even if that resulted in obstacles to trade (Läära v Kihlakunnansyyttäjä (Jyväskylä) and Questore di Verona v Zenatti).
The Treaty also lays down rules designed to ensure free competition between undertakings in Europe. Agreements between undertakings which restrict such competition are therefore in principle prohibited. In three important judgments, the Court held that this prohibition generally does not apply to collective agreements concerning conditions of work and employment in a sector which are concluded between representatives of workers and employers. Such agreements are viewed favourably by the social provisions of the Treaty (Albany International v Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds Textielindustrie and other judgments).
The Court also delivered 10 judgments in 1999 in the very technical, but economically very important, field of public procurement, mainly in response to questions of interpretation of Community directives raised by national courts. It made sure that unsuccessful tenderers have effective remedies which they may rely on before national courts in order to secure protection of their rights (Alcatel Austria and Others v Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft und Verkehr).
The increasing importance of intellectual property (trade marks, patents and so forth) in the functioning of our economies is also reflected in rapidly increasing litigation. The Court strove to protect the rights of holders of trade marks, patents and so forth, which are the reward for their inventive endeavours, while ensuring that those rights are not used to partition the European market in an unjustified manner. For example, it determined the limits within which a garage owner who specialised in the repair and maintenance of BMW cars could legitimately use that trade mark in his advertising (BMW v Deenik).
Finally, the Court continued its collaboration with national courts in order to help them to ensure observance of the principle of equality between men and women, which is laid down in the Treaty. In particular, it held that it was normal that, on the birth of a child, male workers could not claim entitlement to an allowance paid to female workers, since the allowance offset the occupational disadvantages resulting for women from maternity leave (Abdoulaye and Others v Régie Nationale des Usines Renault).
The jurisdiction of the Court of First Instance, which was initially limited to competition cases, staff cases and actions for damages, has been progressively widened so that it now covers all direct actions brought by private parties. The case-law of the past year illustrates the main categories of cases which such parties bring before the Court (excluding actions brought by Community officials).
The case-law concerning competition rules applicable to undertakings was developed by judgments delivered under the ECSC Treaty. In the 11 judgments delivered in the "steel beam" cases, the Court held that the Commission had satisfactorily proved most of the anti-competitive activities complained of in its decision. The partial annulment of the decision for lack of proof related only to minor aspects of the alleged infringements.
Under the provisions of the EC Treaty relating to agreements and concerted practices between undertakings (Article 85, now Article 81 EC), the Court decided the 12 cases brought by undertakings involved in the polyvinylchloride sector (Limburgse Vinyl Maatschappij and Others v Commission). It confirmed the Commission's decision almost entirely, with regard to both form and substance. The substantial volume of the written pleadings submitted by the applicants is noteworthy: they set out, on more than 2 000 pages, nearly 80 distinct grounds of challenge, expressed in the five languages of the case.
Under Article 86 of the EC Treaty (now Article 82 EC), the Court was required to consider the problem of collective dominant positions and to assess whether certain behaviour in relation to prices constituted an abuse (Irish Sugar v Commission). It also annulled a decision by the Commission rejecting a complaint which had alleged that actions of Microsoft France and Microsoft Corporation were contrary to the competition rules of the EC Treaty. The basis for the Court's judgment was that the contested decision contained a manifest error in the assessment of the alleged infringement of Article 86 (Micro Leader Business v Commission).
Review of Commission decisions concerning mergers and concentrations between undertakings is now well established. In one of the cases decided in this field, the Court defined the scope of Regulation No 4064/89 and explained its application to collective dominant positions (Gencor v Commission).
The competition rules applicable to States also continue to give rise to plenty of case-law. In particular, in the area of State aid the judgments delivered by the Court in 1999 on applications for annulment: (i) clarify the conditions under which actions brought by undertakings, trade associations (judgment in Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Luftfahrt-Unternehmen and Hapag-Lloyd v Commission) and local and regional authorities (judgment in Regione Autonoma Friuli-Venezia Giulia v Commission) are admissible; (ii) explain which matters fall within the concept of State aid (in particular, the judgment in BAI v Commission); and (iii) clarify the conditions for applying the derogations from the prohibition against aid under both the ECSC Treaty (in particular, the judgments in Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl v Commission and in British Steel v Commission) and the EC Treaty (judgment in Freistaat Sachsen and Volkswagen v Commission). In addition, the Court found in TF1 v Commission that the Commission had unlawfully failed to adopt a decision on the part of the complaint lodged by the applicant which concerned State aid granted to public television channels.
Cases relating to the conditions under which the public may have access to Council and Commission documents have now come to form an established branch of the case-law. The Court recalled the rule guaranteeing a right of access, which is to be as wide as possible, to documents held by those institutions and observed that the exceptions to the rule must be interpreted strictly. It found fault with the Commission's refusal to grant access to minutes of the Customs Code Committee (Rothmans v Commission) and to documents which it had not drawn up solely for the purpose of specific court proceedings (Interporc v Commission). It also annulled a decision by the Council refusing to grant access to a document in the field of international relations without having examined the possibility of disclosing certain passages from it (Hautala v Council). On the other hand, in its judgment in Bavarian Lager v Commission it gave its approval to the Commission's reliance on the exception relating to the protection of the public interest to refuse access to a draft reasoned opinion drawn up by the Commission under Article 169 of the EC Treaty (now Article 226 EC).
The Court also ensured that anti-dumping legislation was applied correctly. The judgments delivered in this field in 1999 confirmed the legislative measures whose substance was being challenged. In addition, the judgment in Petrotub and Republica v Council clarifies the scope of the procedural rights granted to exporters under the primary regulation (Regulation No 384/96).
A number of cases in the area of agricultural policy were again concerned with the consequences, for certain businesses, of establishment of the common organisation of the market in bananas. Other cases in this area related to the legality of discontinuing aid from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund in the event of a serious breach of fundamental obligations (Conserve Italia v Commission) and to the obligation to observe the terms of a notice of invitation to tender (CAS Succhi di Frutta v Commission); in the latter case, the Commission was criticised for amending the conditions concerning the tender to be submitted.
Trade mark law also made an appearance before the Court. The first action challenging a decision of one of the Boards of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market resulted in the annulment of that decision (Procter & Gamble v OHIM (Baby-Dry)). This judgment marks out the way for a very large number of judgments in this area of intellectual property.
Finally, applications for interim relief are being made to the Court with ever-increasing frequency. The Court dismissed an application for such relief in view of public health requirements (orders in Pfizer Animal Health v Council and Alpharma v Council) and granted an application for suspension of a decision by the European Parliament preventing a political group from being set up (order in Martinez and de Gaulle v Parliament).
Unofficial document for media use which does not bind the Court of Justice. Available in all the languages.
Internet site www.curia.eu.int
For further information please contact Fionnuala Connolly, tel: (00352) 4303 3355; fax: (00352) 4303 2500.