C-101/63

2. European Assembly — Session — Concept (ECSC Treaty, Article 22; EEC Treaty, Article 139; EAEC Treaty, Article 109)

1. The provisions of the Treaties and mined by Article 22 of the ECSC the Protocols which apply to a Treaty, the European Assembly must common institution must be inter­ be considered in session, even if it is preted together and, if necessary, not actually sitting, up to the time of extra­ reconciled. the closure of the annual or

2. Subject to the dates of opening and ordinary sessions.

closure of the annual session deter­

In Case 101/63

Reference to the Court under Article 177 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community and Article 150 of the Treaty establishing the Energy Community by the Tribunal d'Arrondisse­ European Atomic ment, Luxembourg, (Chambre Correctionnelle) for a preliminary ruling in the action pending before that court between

JUDGMENT OF 12.5.1964 — CASE 101/63

Jean FOHRMANN­ , a director, residing at Dudelange, and Antoine Krier, President and Secretary-General of the Letzeburger Arbechterverband,

Esch-sur-Alzette, both assisted by Jean Gremling, Advocate of residing at the Luxembourg Bar,

defendants,

on laying down the duration the interpretation of the treaties and provisions

of the sessions of European Parliamentary Assembly to resolve the the

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Issues of fact and of law

I—Facts and procedure sind doch billiger', which, in the view of Albert Wagner, amounted to a libel The facts and procedure may be sum­ upon him. This article in fact accused

marized as follows: him among other things of having falsified prices and weights and of having On 23 February 1962 and 13 March paid wages in his business which were

Albert below legal Mr Fohr­ 1962, on the application of the minimum.

periodical 'C.G.T.', in its issue no 13 of mentary session and so a new summons 23 December 1961, had published an was issued on 6 November 1962. Messrs

unsigned article entitled 'Kooperativen Fohrmann and Krier asserted before

WAGNER v FOHRMANN

the tribunal that they were both mem­ to the case was lodged on 22 November bers of the Chambre des Deputes of the 1963. The judgment of 29 May 1963 Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and of was notified on 25 November 1963 to the the Parliamentary Assembly of the parties to the main action, to the Com­ European Communities. missions of the EEC and of the EAEC The Tribunal d' Arrondissement of Lux­ and to the Ministers of Foreign Affairs embourg, Chambre Correctionnelle, in of the six Member States. A period of

its judgement of 29 May 1963, found: two months from the date of notification

1. That, by Article 9 of the Protocols on was fixed for the lodging of written

decide, as a matter of law, what is the mentary immunity of Messrs Fohrmann duration of the sessions of the Euro­ and Krier and that in its session of 14

pean Parliamentary Assembly nor October 1963 the European Assembly whether the Assembly was in ordin­ had referred this request to its legal

ary or extraordinary session at the committee for examination. date of the summons (6 November By powers of attorney lodged on 17 1962) ■

January 1964 the Commissions of the

4. That Articles 177 of the EEC Treaty EEC and of the EAEC chose H. J. and 150 of the EAEC Treaty allow Glaesner, Legal Adviser of the Euro­ the national court to request the pean Executives, to represent them in Court of Justice for a preliminary this case.

ruling on the interpretation of the Written observations were lodged: Treaties and on the validity and 1. on 17 January 1964 by the plaintiff interpretation of acts of the institu­ in the main action; tions of the Communities. 2. on 22 January 1964 by the Belgian

on 15 November 1963. The file relating before 15 April 1964:

JUDGMENT OF 12.5.1964 — CASE 101/63

What was Luxem­ be (a) the result of the national court or tribunal shall noti­

bourg Government's request to the fied to the Court of Justice by the court European Assembly to withdraw or tribunal concerned.

the parliamentary immunity of As to the substance of the case, the plaintiff Messrs Fohrmann and Krier? considers that the Assembly of the ECSC (b) Has the appropriate committee of was not in session on 6 November 1962, the European Assembly given any whereas in respect of the Assemblies of

opinion with regard to the time at the EEC and EAEC it is for the defend­ which a session comes to an end? ants in the main action to prove that the

Court the text of Article 1 of the the Treaties and the Protocols assumed

Regulations of the European Assembly that the sessions would be of limited with the preparatory documents and duration and that consequently the

the amendment adopted on 28 June Court of Justice must give a decision 1963. based on considerations of equity, which The parties to the main action and the should induce the Communities to defer­ Commissions of the EEC and of the amend existing provisions in the EAEC were heard at the hearing in ence to the decision of the Court in this

open court on 23 April 1964. dispute. The Advocate-General delivered his reasoned oral opinion at the hearing on C. The Commissions of the EEC and of 30 April 1964. the EAEC assume that the judgment of

29 May 1963 raises the following three II—Observations submitted questions:

under Article 20 of the (a) What immunities did Messrs Fohr­

Court by the parties or by the tribunal to domestic law the question of the extent

itself, whereas Article 20 of the Statute of the immunities of members of the

of the Court of Justice of the EEC and European Assembly during the sessions. Article 21 of the EAEC Statute pre­ As to (b) The second question is con­

scribe clearly that the decision of the cerned with circumstances of fact which

WAGNER v FOHRMANN

are subject to examination by the Court. D. The defendants in the main action

Grounds of judgment

I — Procedure

The Tribunal d'Arrondisse­ plaintiff in the main action submits that the

ment of Luxembourg referred the parties to the Court of Justice, whereas according to Article 177 of the EEC Treaty and Article 150 of the EAEC

Treaty it should itself have referred the matter to this Court.

However, the aforementioned Articles were in this instance satisfied by the direct transmission of the request and the file of the case by the Chief Registrar of the Tribunal d'Arrondissement to the Registrar of this Court.

JUDGMENT OF 12.5.1964 — CASE 101/63

case, to give a preliminary ruling on the question put in so far as it concerns the interpretation of the Treaty establishing the ECSC. Article 9 of the Proto­ col on the Privileges and Immunities of the ECSC is identical to Articles 9 of

the Protocols on the Privileges and Immunities of the EEC and the EAEC

and, as it applies to an institution common to the three Communities, it must be interpreted jointly with Articles 22 of the ECSC Treaty, 139 of the EEC Treaty and 109 of the EAEC Treaty.

In the second place, the request for withdrawal of parliamentary immunity

made on 16 September 1963 to the European Assembly by the Foreign Minister of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has not disseised this Court of the question put by the Tribunal d'Arrondissement of Luxembourg.

This request for interpretation is contained by implication in the question

put by the Tribunal d'Arrondissement of Luxembourg, which involves not only the interpretation of the provisions of the aforementioned Treaties but all other provisions which might bring about the solution of the question in dispute.

B — On the substance of the case

The European Assembly is an institution common to the three Communi­

ties. It is therefore necessary to reconcile, on the one hand, Article 22 of the ECSC Treaty with, on the other hand, Articles 139 of the EEC Treaty and 109 of the EAEC Treaty, the tenor of these latter two Articles being identical.

In the ECSC Treaty, in fact, the meeting without the requirement of being

the EAEC Treaty, the Assembly holds an 'annual session' on the second Tuesday in May ending at the end of the ECSC financial year at the latest, that is, 30 June, and another annual session beginning on the third Tuesday in October.

In the intervals between these 'annual sessions', the Assembly may also, Articles, meet in 'extraordinary for one or other of session'

under the same

the three Communities, at the request of the majority of its members, of the High Authority, of the Councils or of the Commissions.

The concept of 'annual be regarded in such a way as to sessions'

must thus

with the concept of closure would

the former.

The result foregoing considerations is that, subject to the dates of of the

of the annual session determined by Article 22 of the opening and closure

ECSC Treaty, the European Assembly must be considered as being in

session, even if it is not in fact sitting, until the moment of closure of the

court.

On those grounds,

Upon reading the pleadings; Upon hearing the report of the Judge-Rapporteur; Upon hearing the parties to the main action and the Commissions of the EEC and the EAEC; Upon hearing the opinion of the Advocate-General;

Having regard to Articles 22 and 31 of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Com unity;

Having regard to Articles 139 and 177 of the Treaty establishing the Euro­ pean Economic Community; Having regard to Articles 109 and 150 of the Treaty establishing the Euro­ pean Atomic Energy Community;

Having regard to Article 9 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of each of the three Communities; Having regard to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of each of the Com unites;

ties must be interpreted as follows: subject to the dates of

opening and closure of the annual session determined by Article 22 of the ECSC Treaty, the European Assembly must be considered in session, even if it is not actually sitting, up to the time of the closure of the annual or extraordinary sessions.

2. It is for the Tribunal d'Arrondissement of Luxembourg

WAGNER v FOHRMANN

(Chambre Correctionnelle) to decide on the costs in this

action.

fers to this Court for a preliminary noon! So the immunity no longer ruling on the interpretation of the applied as regards the Luxembourg European Treaties, that is (I quote) 'on parliament, but the question remained

the points and provisions stated and all with regard to the status of the accused

others, if need be, which determine the as members of the European Assembly. duration of the sessions of the Assemblies With regard to this matter, the tribunal of the European Communities and thus had some doubts whether the European to settle the question of the parliamen­ Assembly was in ordinary or extra­

tary immunity of the defendants on ordinary session on 6 November 1962, 6 November 1962'. doubts which arose particularly from You will remember in fact that two the lack of clarity of the provisions in the

members of the Chambre des Députés Treaties relating to the duration of the of the Grand Duchy, who are also mem­ sessions. This question needed to be bers of the European Assembly, relied clarified since, under Article 9 of each

on their parliamentary immunity in this of the three Protocols on the Privileges dual capacity so as to have declared and Immunities, it is only 'during the Assembly' inadmissible an action for defamation sessions of the that its members brought against them. Following a enjoy 'in their national territory, the