Case C-465/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verfassungsgerichtshof, Vienna, by order of 12 December 2000 in the case of the Rechnungshof against 1. Österreichischer Rundfunk, 2. Wirtschaftskammer Steiermark, 3. Marktgemeinde Kaltenleutgeben, 4. Land Niederösterrreich, 5. Oesterreichische Nationalbank, 6. Stadt Wiener Neustadt, 7. Austrian Airlines, Österreichische Luftverkehrs-AG
Date: 2001-03-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU law - national law, data protection, disclosure of information, interpretation of the law, public authorities

C 79/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10.3.2001

(b)

If that question is answered in the negative: Does the first
half of the final sentence of Article 2(8) of Council
Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the
coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative
provisions relating to the application of review pro-
cedures to the award of public supply and public
works contracts require an interpretation of the national
legislation to the effect that the court (the independent
body) clarifies of
its own motion, without specific
assertions (and certainly without relevant offers of evi-
dence) made by one of the parties, whether the invitation
to tender in question is not an individual project, but
merely a part-project and — in the event that the latter is
the case — whether the overall project has an estimated
contract value of more than EUR 5 million, or is such a
view prohibited precisely because the onus of proof and
obligation to produce evidence imposed on the party
constitutes the essential difference between a procedure in
which both sides are heard and inquisitorial proceedings?

(1) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verfassungsge-
richtshof, Vienna, by order of 12 December 2000 in the
case of the Rechnungshof against 1. O¨ sterreichischer
Rundfunk, 2. Wirtschaftskammer Steiermark, 3. Marktge-
meinde Kaltenleutgeben, 4. Land Niederösterrreich,
5. Oesterreichische Nationalbank, 6. Stadt Wiener
Neustadt, 7. Austrian Airlines, O¨ sterreichische Luft-
verkehrs-AG

(Case C-465/00)

(2001/C 79/22)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verfassungsgerichts-
hof, Vienna, by order of 12 December 2000, received at the
Court Registry on 28 December 2000 for a preliminary ruling
in the case of the Rechnungshof against 1. O¨ sterreichischer
Rundfunk, 2. Wirtschaftskammer Steiermark, 3. Marktgemein-
de Kaltenleutgeben, 4. Land Niederösterrreich, 5. Oesterreichi-
sche Nationalbank, 6. Stadt Wiener Neustadt, 7. Austrian
Airlines, O¨ sterreichische Luftverkehrs-AG on the following
questions:

1. Are the provisions of Community law, in particular those
on data protection,
to be interpreted as precluding
national rules which require a State body to collect and
pass on data on income for the purpose of publishing the
names and income of employees of:

(a)

a regional or local authority,

(b)

a broadcasting organisation governed by public law,

(c)

a national central bank,

(d)

a statutory body representing its members’ interests,

(e)

a partially State-controlled undertaking which is
operated for profit?

2.

If the answer to at least part of the above question is in
the affirmative:

Are the provisions precluding the abovementioned
national rules directly applicable, in the sense that persons
obliged to disclose data may rely on them to prevent the
application of conflicting national rules?

Appeal brought on 22 December 2000 by the European
Parliament against the judgment delivered on 26 October
2000 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-83/99,
T-84/99 and T-85/99 between Ripa di Meana and Others
and the European Parliament

(Case C-470/00 P)

(2001/C 79/23)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 October 2000
by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Joined Cases T-83/99, T-84/99 and
T-85/99 between Ripa di Meana and Others and the European
Parliament was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 22 December 2000 by the Euro-
pean Parliament, represented by A. Caiola and G. Ricci, acting
as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

1.

2.

3.

set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
26 October 2000 in Cases T-83/99 and T-84/99 Carlo
Ripa di Meana and Leoluca Orlando and the European
Parliament;

in consequence, declare the applications of the said
applicants at first instance inadmissible and unfounded,
and

order the applicants at first instance to pay the whole of
the costs of the proceedings before the Court of First
Instance and the Court of Justice.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Parliament puts forward three pleas in law in
support of its appeal, two of which relate to admissibility and
the third to the substance, the last being subdivided into
various parts and supported by a number of legal arguments.
Its grounds of appeal are as follows: