In presenting its annual report, the Court of Justice places in perspective the developments in the case-law during 1998 and provides a statistical account of its activities. The report brings out the part played by the Court in ensuring that account is taken of issues of European law in matters of particular concern to citizens
The constant increase in the number of cases dealt with by the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance (768 cases disposed of in 1998) is evidence of the efforts made by the Institution in dealing with the steady increase in the volume of cases brought before the two courts (in 1998, 485 cases were brought before the Court of Justice and 238 before the Court of First Instance).
Nevertheless, the number of cases pending is also increasing (664 before the Court of Justice and 569 before the Court of First Instance), despite the fact that the number of judgments delivered has increased by almost 20%.
From the point of view of their content, the stir created by certain judgments bears witness to the importance of the questions which the Court must resolve, concerning both the application and the interpretation of Community law in areas which directly affect the daily life of citizens or where considerable economic and commercial interests are at stake.
The procedures for bringing matters before the Court of Justice mirror the role played by Community law in the daily business of the national courts and, therefore, the importance of its application for the citizens of the Union. Thus, the number of questions referred for preliminary rulings increased by approximately 10% in 1998 compared to the previous year and accounts for more than half of all new cases (264 references for preliminary rulings out of 485 cases brought before the Court). Through the national court with primary responsibility for applying Community law, the citizen of the Union receives a reply directly relevant to the determination of his case.
Last year again, the case-law of the Court of Justice was a source of guidance to national courts, answering their concern to be able to apply Community law properly in the cases before them. The judgments of the two courts concerning, in particular, competition law, State aid and public procurement also bring to the fore the importance of the economic aspect of the construction of the Community.
The very concept of "citizenship" was evoked for the first time by the Court of Justice, which held that a national of a Member State lawfully residing in the territory of another Member State may rely on the article in the Maastricht Treaty concerning European citizenship (Martinez Sala).
In Decker and Kohll the Court of Justice considered the compatibility with Community law of a national rule which imposed stricter conditions (specific prior authorisation) on the reimbursement by the social security system of medical products acquired or hospital out-patient treatment provided in another Member State. It concluded that the national rules at issue constituted an obstacle to the free movement of goods and the freedom to provide services, since they deterred patients from seeking treatment in other Member States, and held that that obstacle was not justified.
As regards the requirement of transparency and of free access to documents, the Court of First Instance condemned the Commission's refusal to provide access to certain documents (Interporc v Commission). Whilst acknowledging that it had no jurisdiction to review the legality of measures adopted under the provisions on cooperation in the field of justice and home affairs, it considered that, in the absence of any explanations from the Council, it was not in a position to determine whether the documents concerning Europol, which the Council refused to communicate to Swedish journalists, fell within the exceptions relied on for the protection of public security and the confidentiality of proceedings and consequently annulled the Council's decision refusing to publish the documents (Svenska Journalistförbundet v Council).
In the field of freedom of movement for workers, the Court of Justice held that a provision in a collective agreement defining the conditions for promotion of public service employees, which did not take account of previous periods of comparable employment completed in the public service of another member State, infringed the principle of non-discrimination (Schöning-Kougebetopoulou). It also held that the French Republic had failed to fulfil its obligations by excluding frontier workers residing in Belgium from qualifying for supplementary retirement pension points, to which French residents are entitled, after being placed in early retirement (Commission v France).
In Grant the Court was called upon to rule on the application of the principle of equal treatment of men and women to a homosexual. It held that an employer's refusal to grant a social advantage to a person of the same sex with whom an employee had a stable relationship did not constitute discrimination. It pointed out that the benefit was refused regardless of the sex of the worker concerned and considered whether a stable relationship between persons of the same sex had to be treated as equivalent to marriage or to a stable relationship with a partner of the opposite sex, bearing in mind Community law, the laws of the Member States and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. It concluded that such equivalence is not currently accepted and that only the Community legislature could alter that position.
As regards protection for pregnant women, the Court held that the principle of non-discrimination required similar protection throughout the period of pregnancy, in particular if the dismissal was based on absences due to incapacity for work caused by an illness resulting from that pregnancy (Brown) and found it necessary to define certain aspects of the financial arrangements and other rights to which women may lay claim during the period of maternity leave (Boyle).
Finally, in cases concerning "mad-cow" disease, the Court held that where there is uncertainty as to the existence or extent of risks to human health, the institutions could take protective measures without having to wait until the reality and seriousness of those risks became fully apparent. (These cases involved the Commission and the reconciliation of its powers relating to animal health with the requirements of the common market).
The number of judgments delivered in the economic field was again very high
There were numerous cases relating to the Community legislation on public procurement, which is intended to open to competition from all undertakings in the Community all contracts awarded by the public authorities in the Member States. In response to questions referred to it by national courts for preliminary rulings, the Court thus had the opportunity to clarify what was meant by a "body governed by public law", in the context of the concept of "contracting authority", a concept which is of importance in defining the Community public procurement regime. It held that a body established in order to produce official administrative documents on an exclusive basis constituted a body governed by public law (Mannesmann). In another judgment (BFI Holding) it held that the removal and treatment of household refuse constituted a "need in the general interest"; the concept of general intere st is one of the criteria applied under Community law in order to define the category of bodies governed by public law. In that respect, the Court held that needs in the general interest could be met by private bodies established for that purpose, even though they may engage for the greater part in other activities, directed to different purposes.
In the absence of legislation on the point, the Court of Justice clarified the Commission's obligations in relation to the examination of a complaint and the statement of the reasons for dismissing it in the field of State aid. Thus, the Commission's decisions in that field are always addressed to the Member States. Letters to complainants are merely for information. Furthermore, there is no basis for imposing on the Commission an obligation to conduct an exchange of views and arguments with the complainant, although the Commission is required to provide the complainant with an adequate explanation of the reasons for which the facts and points of law put forward in the complaint have been held to be insufficient (Commission v Sytraval and Brink's France).
In the field of State aid the Court of First Instance considered the conditions for the admissibility of actions. Thus, it held that the legal position of a region was directly and individually concerned by a decision preventing it from granting aid and requiring it to modify a loan contract entered into with a company (Vlaams Gewest v Commission). A trade union, on the other hand, was not recognised as being directly and individually concerned by a Commission decision finding aid to be incompatible with the common market (Comité d'Entreprise de la Société Française de Production and Others v Commission). Finally, a regional authority was held not to be individually concerned by a Council regulation on aid to certain shipyards, notwithstanding any general interest it may have had in the development of economic activity and the level of employment in its territory (Comunidad Autónoma de Cantabria v Council).
The Court of First Instance also annulled, on the ground of procedural irregularities, a Commission decision authorising the French authorities to grant aid to Air France in the form of an increase in capital, on the ground of procedural irregularities, holding that insufficient reasons had been given for the decision, in particular as regards the effects of the aid on competing airlines (British Airways and Others v Commission).
The Court of First Instance delivered a large number of judgments in the field of competition law, in particular in the "Cartonboard" cases (nine days of hearings), in which it clearly defined the conditions under which an undertaking may be held responsible for an overall cartel. It also held that reductions in the fines imposed by the Commission were justified only if the conduct of the undertaking made it easier for the Commission to establish an infringement and, as the case may be, to put an end to it.
The significance of all these judgments for the social and economic activities of citizens caused the Court of Justice to remain particularly vigilant in 1998 in ensuring that its case-law was disseminated as widely as possible in the eleven official languages, in particular via its INTERNET site (www.curia.eu.int).
Unofficial document for media use which does not bind the Court of Justice. Available in all languages
For additional information please contact Gillian Byrne tel. (0 0352) 4303 - 3366 fax (00352) 4303 - 2500.