C-213/88

LUXEMBOURG v PARLIAMENT

OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE GENERAL LENZ delivered on 25 April 1991 *

Summary

A - Facts I - 5666

l I — Case C-213/88 " 5666

l II — Case C-39/89 " 5667

(a) Developments up to 1981 1-5675

l (b) Case 230/81 ' 5676

l (c) Case 108/83 ' 5677

(d) Joined Cases 358/85 and 51/86 I - 5678

(e) Summary of the case-law I - 5678

l 2. Case C-213/88 " 5679

(b) Decision of 15 June 1988 1-5683

3. Case C-39/89 j . 56g5

C — Conclusion I - 5689

Mr President, of the ECSC Treaty, 173 of the EEC Treaty Members of the Court, and 146 of the EAEC Treaty.

A — Facts 3. The Luxembourg Government challenges the decisions taken by the Bureau of the European Parliament on 1 and 2 June 1988 and 15 June 1988. According to the 1. The joined cases on which the Court is Parliament, such decisions are not binding called upon to rule relate once again to the until the adoption of the minutes at the next assessment of measures taken by the meeting. The decisions in question were European Parliament at the boundary adopted at the meetings of the Bureau on between its power to determine its own 15 June and 6 July 1988. internal organization on the one hand, and decisions on matters of principle with practical effects prejudging the question of the seat of the institution on the other. T h e 4. The content of the contested decisions is problems concerning the seat and places of essentially as follows: work of the European Parliament have repeatedly given rise to cases before the Court. '

5. (a) In the Decision of 1 and 2 June 1988 the Bureau endorsed a report by the Ad H o c Working Party on Information, in I — Case C-213/88 which measures to improve the information services in Brussels were formulated, and at the same time instructed the Secretary-General to implement the 2. In Case C-213/88 the Luxembourg proposals. Government has brought an action for annulment pursuant to Articles 31 and 38

7. At that time the transfer of the English- language sector had already taken place, so 10. The action for annulment in Case that this measure is not the subject of the C-39/89 challenges the Resolution of the contested decision. On the other hand, the European Parliament of 18 January 1989. report contained the concrete proposal to The contested resolution, known as the transfer the Portuguese-language sector on 'Prag resolution', is named after the 1 January 1989. This transfer is directly rapporteur Derek Prag. challenged. Moreover, the intention was expressed in the report to transfer further language sectors to Brussels in future, to which the Luxembourg Government also objects. 11. The Luxembourg Government objects to the resolution as a whole, but especially to paragraphs 7, 9, 10, 16 and 17 thereof. The resolution is a comprehensive statement concerning the seat of the institutions and the main place of work of the European 8. (b) In the Decision of 15 June 1988 the Parliament. The paragraphs to which the Bureau opted for specific building projects in Luxembourg Government takes particular Brussels. The Bureau 'decided unanimously, exception may be regarded as the practical with regard to Brussels, for the "Park consequence of the Parliament's perception Leopold Investment" . . . and, by 12 votes to of its working conditions as unsatisfactory. nil with one abstention, for the In the passages of the resolution on which "Groupement COB — Société Générale" particular emphasis is placed, the project'. At the same time it empowered the Parliament: Secretary-General to take all the measures required.

as well as

13. By letter of 23 August 1988, the Luxembourg Foreign Minister asked the — other staff whose principal role is to President of the European Parliament not to provide services directly to individual Members, and implement the disputed measures before judgment was delivered in Case C-213/88. The Bureau of the Parliament rejected that request and instead confirmed the Decisions of 1 and 15 June 1988 at its meeting on — those staff whose supervisory or 14 September 1988. Since then, the supporting roles require them to be in disputed measures have been implemented. the same place as those referred to above;

16. Instructs its President, 14. Finally, implementing measures have Secretary-General, Bureau, Enlarged also been taken to put the Prag resolution Bureau and Quaestors to take speedily all into effect, such as the Bureau decision on appropriate steps, including staff consul- the Parliament's buildings policy concerning tations, to implement the above, notably by the leasing of certain office and conference

I - 5668

LUXEMBOURG v PARLIAMENT

rooms, which was adopted by the European — in Case C-213/88: declare null and void Parliament on 5 April 1990. 2 For Brussels the Decision of the Bureau of the alone, the President and the European Parliament of 1 and 2 June Secretary-General were authorized to lease 1988 entitled 'Information and public buildings D l , D2 and D3 in order to ensure relations services in Brussels' and the the availability of 2 600 offices and 30 Decision of the Bureau of 15 June 1988 conference rooms in a single complex and in entitled 'Note on the medium-term addition to secure the use of the large forecasts of the activities of the 750-seat conference room in the complex. European Parliament in the three normal places of work';

OPINION OF MR LENZ — J O I N E D CASES C-213/88 A N D C-39/89

B — Opinion 25. The same grounds as those on which measures of the Parliament may be chal- lenged under Article 173 of the EEC Treaty must also apply to the right of action under I — Admissibility of the two applications of Article 146 of the EAEC Treaty, which is the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg couched in identical terms.

21. The admissibility of the application was also contested in the earlier proceedings. 1. Case C-213/88 The Court rejected all the objections raised in that regard. I propose that the Court should do so in these cases as well.

26. The Parliament raises preliminary objections to the form of the application. In 22. The Court has expressly acknowledged its view, the complaints should be specified. in its case-law that measures of the It contends that the individual pleas are too European Parliament may be challenged vague, making a proper defence difficult. under Articles 31 and 38 of the ECSC Treaty and Article 173 of the EEC Treaty. 3

27. In reply, the Luxembourg Government challenges the contested decisions in their 23. Under Article 38 of the ECSC Treaty, entirety. It points to the circumstances a Member State may lodge an application which alone enabled it to learn of the against an act of the European Parliament contested decisions, and refers to individual on grounds of lack of competence or passages from the decisions in emphasizing infringement of an essential procedural that it wishes the Court to examine all requirement. aspects capable of producing legal effects.

33. The parties therefore already disagree as to whether this constitutes the estab- 30. It must be acknowledged that in the lishment of a new service or only the cases cited by the Parliament the Court assignment of additional staff to an existing dismissed the possibility of legal action administrative unit. In neither case is it clear against measures concerning the internal whether the act in question is a measure of organization of the institution. However, internal organization that does not affect the question here can only be whether the the rights of any third party. Instead, in disputed measures really are measures of order to answer those questions, it is internal organization. In another case, the necessary to examine the content of the Court recognized that a resolution of the contested decisions: the substance of the Parliament produced legal effects and case must therefore be considered without therefore considered that it could be giving a final decision on the admissibility of reviewed by the Court. 6 the application as regards the Decision of 1 and 2 June 1988. 8

responsibility for carrying it out has been infringement of the Treaty. In the absence transferred to a specified body. The decision of a minimum of substance in support of the in favour of the building projects is not application, the defendant would bear the simply a declaration of intent by the Bureau burden of proving that its behaviour did not that requires further decisions in order to exceed the limits of legality. become binding but a decision with a specific and precise content. The Bureau's Decision of 15 June 1988 is therefore in the nature of a decision which produces legal effects and hence actionable. The application in Case C-213/88 is therefore 37. T h e Luxembourg Government admissible as regards that decision. maintains that the application more than satisfies the minimum formal requirements of Article 38 of the Rules of Procedure. It points out that the application describes the subject-matter of the dispute, the resolution in its entirety as well as individual para- graphs thereof. It sets out in detail the 2. Case C-39/89 applicant's arguments, namely transgression of the Parliament's powers and breach of the principle of proportionality. Moreover, in the applicant's view, the Parliament's objection is based on an error of law as it relates to the production of proof, which has nothing to do with the question whether 35. In Case C-39/89 a procedural issue the form of the application is in order. concerning the admissibility of the application arose in the course of the written procedure. It was dealt with by the Court which decided to reserve the decision on the formal objection of inadmissibility for the final judgment. The Parliament 38. Article 38 of the Rules of Procedure raises two objections of inadmissibility, one lays down the formal requirements with concerning the form of the application and which an application must comply. The the other the nature of the disputed conditions set out in Article 38(1 )(a) and measures. (b) are undoubtedly satisfied, as is that in (d), which requires the form of order sought by the applicant to be stated. However, (c), which stipulates that the application must state 'the subject-matter of the proceedings and a summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based', may be 36. (a) As in the preliminary remarks problematic. The subject-matter of the regarding Case C-213/88, the Parliament proceedings is described in the application takes the view that the application does not as the resolution whereby the Parliament satisfy the procedural requirements and is adopted the Prag Report, and is therefore therefore inadmissible on that ground alone. the resolution in its entirety. To the extent It considers that in order to challenge the that individual paragraphs of the resolution, legality of the acts of an institution it is not whose legality is challenged, are cited as the sufficient to rely on lack of competence on legal grounds on which the action is based, the part of the enacting institution or what the applicant seeks is specified and

39. Article 38(l)(e) requires the applicant to state 'where appropriate, the nature of 42. As the application in Case C-39/89 any evidence offered in support'. Evidence satisfies the formal requirements laid down needs to be adduced only if questions of in the Rules of Procedure, the first fact are at issue. In this case, however, it is objection of inadmissibility must be rejected. simply a matter of reviewing the legality of a measure. As the disputed resolution is attached to the application, the requirements of Article 38(4) of the Rules of Procedure in conjunction with the second 43. (b) The second objection of inadmiss- paragraph of Article 19(2) of the Statute of ibility relates to the nature of the disputed the Court of Justice of the EEC and measure. The Parliament points to the Euratom are met. judgment in Salerno v Commission and Council,"* in which the Court held that a resolution of the Parliament was not binding. 10 That finding should not be considered out of context, however.

— committees and delegations,

As a factor in the consultation procedure, — information and public relations, the resolution in question could not have binding force.

— studies and research,

as well as 46. As frequently stated, determination of the nature of a measure depends not on its form but on its content. That is particularly apparent from the fact that in other cases — other staff whose principal role is to the Court has acknowledged that resolu- provide services directly to individual tions of the Parliament actually produced Members, and binding legal effects " or were capable of doing so. The Court has always determined 12 — Judgment in Case 108/83, paragraph 23. 13 — Judgment in Case 230/81, paragraph 30, and in Joined 11 -— See the judgments ¡n Cases 230/81 and 108/83 and in Cases 358/85 and 51/86, paragraph 15. Joined Cases 358/85 and 51/86, cited in footnotes 1 and 5. H — Paragraph 1 of the resolution.

I - 5674

LUXEMBOURG v PARLIAMENT

'to take speedily all appropriate steps, including staff consultations, to implement (a) Developments up to 1981 the above, notably by leasing or acquiring new premises and terminating the leases of buildings when they are no longer required'. 17 50. Pursuant to Articles 77 of the ECSC Treaty, 216 of the EEC Treaty and 189 of the EAEC Treaty the seat of the institutions is to be determined by common accord of the Governments of the Member States. Pursuant to Article 37 of the Treaty estab- 48. Hence, the resolution is so precise in lishing a Single Council and a Single certain respects that it must be deemed to be Commission of the European Communities of a decision-making nature. Even without (the Merger Treaty), the representatives of giving precise figures, the resolution can be the Governments of the Member States took implemented in substance, so that its a decision on the provisional location of decision-making nature cannot be disputed certain institutions and departments of the on the ground that the subject-matter is not Communities. 18 The decision came into sufficiently clear. In particular, the force on the same day as the Merger instructions to the Parliament's bodies to Treaty. According to Article 37 of the carry out specific proposals produce effects Merger Treaty, 'the provisions required in which may in certain circumstances violate order to settle certain problems peculiar to the legal guarantees given to the Grand the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg which Duchy of Luxembourg. The possibility of arise out of the creation of a single Council impairing the legal rights of third parties and a single Commission of the European should be sufficient to establish that the Communities' are to be expressly laid down. measure in question is actionable. Article 4 of the implementing decision also states that 'The General Secretariat of the 15 — Paragraph 10 of the resolution. 16 — Paragraph 17 of the resolution. 18 — Decisions 67/447/EEC and 67/30/Euratom, OJ 1967 17 — Paragraph 16 of the resolution. L 152, p. 18.

Assembly and its departments shall remain to determine the seat of the institutions was in Luxembourg'. expressly confirmed. The Conference stated that the decision taken in Maastricht was in the exercise of that power and did not prejudge the determination of the seat of the institutions. 19 51. In reply to a letter from the President of the Parliament describing the problems affecting the work of the Parliament as a result of the increase in the number of 53. Since then, the Governments of the Members following their election by direct Member States have taken no further universal suffrage, the President of the decision regarding the seat or provisional Council informed the President of the places of work of the institutions. Parliament on 22 September 1977 that the Governments of the Member States saw no reason to change the arrangements then in force with regard to the provisional places (b) Case 230/81 of work of the Assembly, either de jure or de facto; those places were Strasbourg and Luxembourg, where the Secretariat and the departments of the Assembly were to remain, whereas the parliamentary 54. In 1981 the Parliament decided to hold committees were in the habit of meeting in its part-sessions in Strasbourg (and no longer Brussels with the minimum facilities in Luxembourg as well), to organize the necessary to ensure the smooth conduct of meetings of its committees and political their sittings. groups as a general rule in Brussels and to review the operation of the Secretariat to meet the requirements arising out of that division. This led to an action by the Luxembourg Government for a declaration that the resolution of the Parliament was void, 52. At the end of 1980 and the beginning of which was dismissed. 1981 the representatives of the Governments of the Member States met in a Conference on the seat of the Community institutions. The conference established that differences of opinion remained and that among the 55. With regard to the power to determine various options, none of which was ideal, the seat and the places of work, the Court the most satisfactory was to retain the status has held that the Governments of the quo, that is to say the designation of a Member States have power to determine the number of provisional places of work. At seat of the institutions pursuant to the the European Council in Maastricht the Treaties establishing the Communities. At Heads of State and Government of the the same time, it has emphasized that the Member States decided unanimously on 23 Member States have not only the right but and 24 March 1981 'to confirm the status also the duty to exercise that power and quo in regard to the provisional places of that they 'have not yet discharged' 20 that work of the European institutions'. The obligation. When taking provisional conference on the seat of the institutions decisions in the exercise of that power, the ended on 30 June 1981 by taking formal note of that decision. The exclusive power 19 — For a summary of these events, see the judgment in Case 230/81, cited in footnote 1 above. of the Governments of the Member States 20 — See the judgment in Case 230/81, paragraph 36.

57. In - order to ascertain whether the 60. The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was Parliament acted ultra vires in adopting a unsuccessful in its action for the annulment particular resolution, the Court considers of the resolution adopting the Žagari that the content of the operative part of the Report. resolution has to be examined in the light of the respective powers of the Member States and of the Parliament. (c) Case 108/83

61. Following its success in Case 230/81, 2 5 the Parliament passed a further resolution 58. According to the Court, Article 4 of the Decision of 8 April 1965 must be inter- 22 — Emphasis added. preted as meaning that 23 — Judgment in Case 230/81, paragraphs 53 and 54. 24 — Judgment in Case 230/81, paragraph 55. 21 — Judgment in Case 230/81, paragraph 38. 25 — Judgment in Case 230/81, ibid., footnote 1 above.

I - 5677

OPINION O F MR LENZ — J O I N E D CASES C-213/88 A N D C-39/89

— The Parliament is entitled, on the basis of the power to determine its own 'the Parliament, in exercising its power to internal organization conferred on it by determine its own internal organization, the Treaties, to adopt appropriate from deciding to hold a part-session away measures to ensure its proper func- from Strasbourg, when such a decision tioning and the conduct of its remains exceptional in nature, thus proceedings. Nevertheless, in respecting the position of that city as the accordance with the mutual duty of normal meeting place, and is justified by sincere cooperation embodied in objective reasons connected with the proper Article 5 of the EEC Treaty, the functioning of the Parliament'. 28 decisions of the Parliament must also have regard to the power of the Governments of the Member States to determine the seat of the institutions and their provisional decisions taken in 63. On those grounds the French the meantime 32 and must not call in Government was unsuccessful in its action for the annulment of the resolution at issue. 29 — Judgment in Case 230/81, paragraphs 35 and 36. 30 — Judgment in Joined Cases 358/85 and 51/86, paragraph 26 — Judgment in Case 108/83, ibid-, footnote t above. 34. 27 — Judgment in Joined Cases 358/85 and 51/86, ibid., 31 — Judgment in Joined Cases 358/85 and 51/86, paragraph Footnote 1 above. 40. 28 — Judgment in Joined Cases 358/85 and 51/86, paragraph 32 — Judgment in Case 230/81, paragraphs 37 and 38; judgment 36. in Joined Cases 358/85 and 51/86, paragraphs 34 and 35.

I - 5678

LUXEMBOURG v PARLIAMENT

71. The Court has therefore given the Parliament considerable latitude to assess the measures it considers essential. 67. The Court accordingly concedes that the Parliament has considerable latitude to decide the measures it deems necessary to ensure its proper functioning, although it 72. That principle must constitute the point may not discard a place of work determined of departure in examining the present case by the Member States' Governments. 34 as well.

68. The contested decisions of the 2. Case C-213/88 Parliament are to be examined against that background.

33 — Judgment in Case 108/83, paragraphs 25, 28 and 31. 34 — See the submissions of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg 73. (a) In the Decision of 1 and 2 June in Case 108/83, ibid. 1988 the Bureau of the Parliament notes the

I - 5679

OPINION OF MR LENZ —JOINED CASES C-213/88 AND C-39/89

repon or the Ad H o c working Party on 76. On the other hand, if the report is Information, agrees with the general considered as a whole, the impression guidelines laid down in the report and gained is that the Central Press Office has instructs the Secretary-General to take steps already come into existence. Paragraph II. 1 to implement the proposals adopted. The states that the Central Press Office must Bureau accordingly endorses the substance remain separate from the Brussels In- of the report, with the result that the formation Office which is responsible for considerations set out therein must be taken Belgium. into account in examining the legality of the contested decision.

I - 5680

LUXEMBOURG v PARLIAMENT

I - 5681

OPINION OF MR LENZ —JOINED CASES C-213/88 AND C-39/89

— the fifth task assigned to the Central the fact that the Member States have not yet Press office consists of Organizing the even determined a single place of work for facilities and reception services for the Parliament. The institution was therefore accredited journalists in the institution's entitled to concentrate one of its services, various places of work and managing the Central Press Office, in Brussels. the Press Rooms in Brussels and Strasbourg'. Brussels is certainly the most convenient location, although perhaps not the only possible one. In transferring this task the Parliament has not exceeded its powers. 87. The transfer of the Portuguese-language sector of the Publications Division from Luxembourg to Brussels must also be examined against the background of the abovementioned case-law. T h e Luxembourg Government regards this as an unjustified 84. An assessment of whether it is transfer of an administrative unit. The permissible to establish or enlarge the Parliament defends its action on the Central Press Office in Brussels depends not grounds that it was necessary to enlarge the least on the tasks assigned to it. In the form Central Press Office in Brussels and that the in which they are described in the report of four officials in question were prepared to the Ad Hoc Working Party on Information, move to that city. It was therefore primarily those tasks give rise to no serious objections. a question of the need to transfer specific officials, and the transfer of the service to which those officials belonged was merely a consequence thereof.

falls within the Parliament's discretionary the Secretariat of the Parliament, which in powers. turn exists to provide support for parliamentary activities taking place outside Luxembourg, and indeed three-quarters of which are held in Brussels. This requires officials working directly for Members to be 90. The applicant's criticism of the transfer present in Brussels, irrespective of the of staff from the Publications Division on departments to which they belong. The the ground that the Office for Official same applies to officials needed to supervise Publications is situated in Luxembourg or provide support for those members of has been convincingly rebutted by the staff In those circumstances personal Parliament, which points out that the contact cannot be replaced by modern department in question is the Secretariat's means of communication. The presence of internal service for reproducing and dis- those officials in Brussels, which is necessary tributing documents intended for or drawn on objective grounds, inevitably affects the up by the political groups and committees. ratio of staff employed in Brussels and There can be no doubt but that such a Luxembourg. service is essential in the place where the committees and political groups meet, in other words in Brussels.

93. On the other hand, 2 360 staff were 91. Moreover, the decisions in question are employed in Luxembourg on 31 July 1990, not such as to call in question Luxembourg's compared with 420 in 1965, when it was position as the place of work of the Secre- decided that the Secretariat of the tariat in breach of the assurances Parliament should remain in Luxembourg. Luxembourg received in 1965. A Admittedly since 1988 the number has fallen comparison between the number of staff from 2 428 to the figure of 2 360 mentioned employed in the Secretariat in Luxembourg above, but there is no question of at the time and the number employed there Luxembourg being rejected as the seat of now speaks for itself. 35 the Parliament's Secretariat, as was to be feared in the Court proceedings in which Luxembourg was successful against the Parliament. 36

98. Both the Secretary-General's note and that of the Bureau state that the 95. In the Secretary-General's opinion, the Parliament's aim is to provide sufficient following premises are considered necessary offices for Members, the Secretariat and the to meet requirements: political groups.

— approximately 300-350 additional offices; 99. If the 130 offices to be vacated are deducted from the 300-350 offices to be provided by the two building projects, the actual increase in the number of offices is around 200. The intention to provide both — two or three conference rooms each the Members and the political groups with with at least 200-250 seats to enable sufficient offices is not open to criticism. large political groups to meet and, if necessary, several committees to hold joint sessions;

100. The Parliament points out that the Socialist Group alone has 170 members. — essential premises for the reproduction That being so, the demand for conference and distribution services. rooms with 200-250 seats is not excessive.

96. The continued use of 130 offices in a building occupied by the Parliament was in 101. The discussion between the parties doubt at that time, so that alternative concerning the meetings of a 'large premises had to be sought. committee' is in my opinion somewhat beside the point. It may have been triggered by the reference made by the Parliament itself to a 'large committee' both in the contested Decision of the Bureau of 97. According to the Secretary-General's 15 June 1988 and in the Note of the note, the two building projects adopted by Secretary-General of 6 June 1988. In fact, it

104. In conclusion, the Parliament cannot 102. The reference to Article 37 of the be held to have exceeded its powers in Rules of Procedure of the Parliament is of adapting the Decision of 15 June 1988 on only limited significance in the discussion on buildings policy. the need for larger conference rooms. Under Article 37 of the Parliament's Rules of Procedure, the plenary session may delegate certain matters to the 'responsible 3. Case C-39/89 committee' for debate and for its decision, the results of its deliberations become decisions of the Parliament by simple adoption in plenary session. When that 105. In paragraph 7 of the resolution, the procedure is used, the public is admitted first paragraph considered illegal by the in accordance with Article 37(4). The Luxembourg Government, the Parliament admission of the public means, however, that seats must be available for them and, where necessary, for representatives of the media. 'Resolves in consequence to make more satis- factory arrangements for carrying out its tasks, in accordance with its obligations under Community law and the self-evident right of a Parliament elected by direct universal suffrage'.

108. The paragraph, which contains 'instructions', can be interpreted as a definitive direction to the competent body — those staff whose supervisory or to increase the staff complement and the supporting roles require them to be in equipment in Strasbourg and Brussels. In the same place as those referred to itself, however, that passage is far too above'. imprecise to serve as the legal basis for specific implementing measures. The intention to carry out the tasks in question efficiently and effectively is a general aim 110. T h e use of the word 'consider' may that says nothing about the means whereby convey the impression that the Parliament is it is to be achieved. Consequently, no legally expressing an opinion which has no binding binding effect can be inferred from force. However, the proposed transfers of paragraph 9 on its own. staff are so specific that implementation could begin at once. Paragraph 17 of the resolution emphasizes that direct and specific changes are intended, for here the Parliament 'stresses' 109. The position is different with regard to paragraph 10. Here the Parliament 'considers' 'the urgency of its situation and the need to make the changes foreseen in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 as soon as facilities become available'. 'that it is indispensable for its proper func- tioning for the Parliament to have in Brussels the staff dealing with the following activities : 111. Moreover, in paragraph 16 of the resolution, the Parliament's bodies are unequivocally instructed to set in motion the implementation of the changes envisaged, as regards both the premises and the necessary — committees and delegations, staff decisions.

116. The claim by the Luxembourg 113. As far as the staff for committees and Government that the use of modern delegations is concerned, it is necessary to computer technology makes such transfers start from the premise that the unnecessary is not entirely convincing in this parliamentary committees and political connection. For example, telecommuni- groups carry out their work in Brussels in cations technology can be used for storing legally unimpeachable conditions. The voluminous documents or for transmitting fundamental division of parliamentary acti- particular documents from one place to vities among the three places of work was another by fax. On the other hand, there is last approved by the Court in Joined Cases no substitute for consulting the relevant 358/85 and 51/86. If the fact that the literature in a particular subject area. committees and delegations meet in Brussels is above reproach, then it is self-evident that the necessary staff must also be present.

117. The transfer of the studies and research service is also justified on objective grounds. 114. As regards information and public T h a t service is dependent both on the relations staff, I would refer the Court to library and on personal contact with those my observations concerning the Parliament's whom it serves, namely the Members of press activities in connection with Case Parliament, if it is to ensure that its work is C-213/88. 38 also to be of use to them.

115. With regard to 'studies and research', it is certainly in the interest of committee 118. T o summarize, it can be stated that the work, which is an important part of transfer of the said staff does not in parliamentary work, for the necessary principle exceed the authority conferred on resources in terms of relevant literature and the Parliament as part of its organizational research staff to be available. It is possible to powers. Nevertheless, the Parliament will have to ensure that the transfers are not on 38 — Sec paragraphs 75-89 above. a scale that calls in question Luxembourg's

121. A further point, however, is that paragraph 10 does not specify the measures 119. Paragraph 10 of the resolution refers to be taken. Instead, the Parliament's not only to the categories of staff discussed bodies — its President, Secretary-General, above but also to staff whose principal role Bureau, Enlarged Bureau and is to provide services directly to individual Quaestors — are responsible for taking the Members. The wording is couched in very appropriate implementing measures. general terms, but the emphasis should be on the word 'directly', which delimits the group of persons who may be included in the definition. In this narrow sense, the paragraph refers to staff whose cooperation with Members is characterized by personal contacts and direct instructions. Viewed in 122. The legal effects of the resolution stem those terms, in my opinion, the availability from the direct instructions relating to of such staff in the places where sessions are proposals that are clearly defined on held, including Brussels, does not give rise objective grounds. It is the Parliament's to any objections. bodies, however, that are responsible for actual implementation, in accordance with the internal division of the Parliament's powers. In that regard, it is to be assumed, until there is proof to the contrary, that, in accordance with the decision adopted by the Governments in 1965 and the case-law of the Court, the Parliament's bodies must not call in question Luxembourg's position as the place of work of the Secretariat. 120. The last category of persons mentioned in paragraph 10 of the resolution comprises 'staff whose supervisory or supporting roles require them to be in the same place as those referred to above'. This wording is also very general. It can be interpreted as an 123. Finally, the Luxembourg Government ancillary arrangement for the previously has laid particular emphasis on paragraphs described categories of staff delimited on 16 and 17 of the resolution and submitted objective grounds. If the supporting role to them for review by the Court. As explained which it refers is considered, it could when the other paragraphs have examined, become a catch-all term extending the ambit paragraphs 16 and 17 gain significance only of the staff categories described. In my in conjunction with the other paragraphs view, the emphasis must be placed on the of the resolution. The Luxembourg word 'require', which introduces the Government has expressly stated that the

2. o r d e r the applicant t o pay the costs.

39 _ Case 108/83 and Joined Cases 358/85 and 51/86, but not In Case 230/81.

I - 5689