Case C-467/00 P: Appeal brought on 27 December 2000 by Staff Committee of the European Central Bank, established in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, Johannes Priesemann, member of staff of the ECB, residing in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, Marc van de Velde, member of staff of the ECB, residing in Usingen-Kransberg, Germany and Maria Concetta Cerafogli, member of staff of the ECB, residing in Frankfurt am Main, Germany against the order made on 24 October 2000 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-27/00 between Staff Committee of the European Central Bank, Johannes Priesemann, Marc van de Velde and Maria Concetta Cerafogli and European Central Bank
Date: 2001-02-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Central Bank, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), fundamental rights, worker consultation, works council

24.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 61/5

Appeal brought on 27 December 2000 by Staff Com-
mittee of the European Central Bank, established in
Frankfurt am Main, Germany, Johannes Priesemann, mem-
ber of staff of the ECB, residing in Frankfurt am Main,
Germany, Marc van de Velde, member of staff of the
ECB, residing in Usingen-Kransberg, Germany and Maria
Concetta Cerafogli, member of staff of the ECB, residing
in Frankfurt am Main, Germany against the order made
on 24 October 2000 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities in case
T-27/00 (1) between Staff Committee of the European
Central Bank, Johannes Priesemann, Marc van de Velde
and Maria Concetta Cerafogli and European Central Bank

of the ECB do not foresee a time-limit within which an action
should be brought. Thirdly, the Conditions of Employment of
the ECB do not require internal procedures to be exhausted
prior to the bringing of an action. Lastly, this legal situation is,
in the view of
for a private law
relationship of the type established by the Conditions of
Employment of the ECB. There is no need to construct further
limitations for actions in the form of time-limits or internal
procedures.

the Appellants, usual

(1) OJ C 135, 13.5.2000, p. 13.

(Case C-467/00 P)

(2001/C 61/09)

An appeal against the order made on 24 October 2000 by the
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in case T-27/00 between Staff Committee of the
European Central Bank, Johannes Priesemann, Marc van de
Velde and Maria Concetta Cerafogli and European Central
Bank, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 27 December 2000 by Staff Committee of
the European Central Bank, Johannes Priesemann, Marc van
de Velde and Maria Concetta Cerafogli,
represented by
N. Pflüger, R. Steiner and S. Mittländer, Rechtsanwalte, Frank-
furt am Main, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of A. Schiltz, Association Luxembourgeoise des
Employés de Banque et d’Assurance, 29 Avenue Monterey.

The Appellants claim that:

1)

the order be annulled and the claims brought in the first
instance be accepted as founded,

and if this claim cannot be accepted, demand that

the order be annulled in so far as the Court of First
Instance dismissed the action as inadmissible and the case
be referred back to the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities

2)

the Respondent be ordered to pay the costs of the appeal
and the action at the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The admissibility and timeliness of the action has to be judged
on the basis of Article 236 EC in conjunction with Article
36.2 of the Statute. Article 36.2 of the Statute, in turn, refers
to the conditions of employment. Hence, the application and
interpretation of Article 42 of the Conditions of Employment
of the ECB has to be the basis of the ruling. The Appellants
hold the view that the Court of First Instance overlooked three
aspects of law in this respect: first, Article 42 of the Conditions
of Employment of the ECB provides for access to the Court of
Justice in the case of disputes over collective rights. Second, in
the pursuit of collective rights the Conditions of Employment

Appeal brought on 29 December 2000 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the judgment deliv-
ered on 24 October 2000 by the Third Chamber, Extended
Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the Euro-
pean Communities in case T-178/98 (1) between Fresh
Marine Company A/S and the Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities

(Case C-472/00 P)

(2001/C 61/10)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 24 October 2000
by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities in case T-178/98
the
between Fresh Marine A/S and the Commission of
European Communities, was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 29 December 2000
by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Viktor Kreuschitz, Legal Adviser, and Sinéad Meany, a
national civil servant on secondment to the Legal Service of
the Commission, acting as agents, assisted by Nicholas Khan,
Barrister, of the Bar of England and Wales, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Go´ mez de la
Cruz, a member of the Legal Service, Centre Wagner.

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

1.

2.

set aside the judgment, dismiss the Application, and order
the Respondent to pay the costs, or alternatively,

set aside the judgment and refer the case back to the
Court of First Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

It is submitted that the judgment appealed is vitiated by a
number of errors of law and should be set aside and the
Application dismissed. It is submitted that the Court of First
Instance erred in law in the following respects:

— In holding that the damage arose from the allegedly
unlawful conduct of the Commission when it examined
the October 1997 report.