Case C-470/00 P: 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
Date: 2001-03-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Parliament, General Court (EU), Member of the European Parliament, action for annulment (EU), pension scheme

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:

10.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 79/13

(a)

(b)

(c)

as regards admissibility: the European Parliament dis-
putes, first of all, the Court of First Instance’s characteris-
ation of the letter of 19 November 1998 of the two
Italian Vice-presidents of the European Parliament as the
‘applicants’ application for membership’. According to
the Court of First Instance, that application for member-
ship was made on behalf of
In the
opinion of the Parliament, that is an apoditic assertion,
unsupported by reasons and having no basis in relevant
provisions of law, or in practice;

the applicants.

again, as regards admissibility: the Parliament also dis-
putes the Court of First Instance’s characterisation of the
College of Quaestors’
letter of 4 February 1999 as a
decision. Rather, it was merely a communication from
the quaestors of the European Parliament for the purposes
of providing information and as a courtesy, and, in any
event, did no more than confirm the existing situation, of
which the Members of Parliament
in question were
already perfectly well aware. Moreover, the informal and
atypical requests the applicants made of the quaestors
place them outside the scope of every applicable rule and
every procedure (such as that provided for in Article
27(2) of the Rules Governing the Payment of Expenses
and Allowances to Members);

lastly, as to the substance: the European Parliament
maintains that the Court of First Instance erred in law
when, reversing the burden of proof and thus committing
a breach of procedure, it found that the Parliament had
‘not proved that
the Members had acquired precise
knowledge of the amending decision more than six
months before they submitted their applications’, and
concluded that ‘the applicants submitted their appli-
cations for membership of
the provisional pension
scheme within the time-limit laid down in the amendment
to Annex III’.

Action brought on 29 December 2000 by the Kingdom of
Spain against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties

(Case C-501/00)

(2001/C 79/24)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 29 December 2000 by the Kingdom of
Spain, represented by Santiago Ortiz Vaamonde, Abogado del
Estado, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg care of the Spanish Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard
Emmanuel Servais.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision of 31 October 2000
declaring that the Spanish legislation on the exemption
from corporation tax of expenditure and investments
made abroad constitutes aid which is incompatible with
the common market and prohibited by Article 4(c) of the
ECSC Treaty;

— order the defendant institution to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Infringement of the procedure laid down by law and
breach of the principles of legal certainty, of the right
to a fair hearing and of the protection of legitimate
expectations: by not adopting the decision within the
time-limit prescribed by Article 6(5) of Decision
2496/96/ECSC, the Commission failed to observe the
procedure laid down by the latter decision, on which the
contested decision is based. Moreover, the contested
decision was adopted contrary to the legitimate expec-
tations of both the Member State to which it was
addressed and the undertakings affected by it. Following
the finalisation of the preparatory documents, the Com-
mission failed to give its definitive decision within the
legal time-limit of three months; it allowed several years
to elapse following the expiry of the deadline for the
adoption of a decision, and may thus reasonably be
considered to have engendered a legitimate expectation
that the measures in issue were not regarded as contrary
to the Treaty in the light of the investigation initiated in
1997.

— Infringement of Article 15 ECSC, on account of the
absence of a statement of reasons concerning the change
of criterion and the effect of the legislation on the
competitiveness of the national products exported.

— Misapplication of Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty: non-
existence of any aid or subsidy within the meaning of
that provision: automatically to assimilate the concept of
aid under that provision to aid under Article 87 EC
could give rise to inconsistency, inasmuch as the effects
produced by Article 87 EC are absolute and uncon-
ditional. The ECSC Treaty automatically prohibits aid by
virtue of the very fact of accession to the ECSC; it does
not require any assessment of the effects of such aid on
competition, and does not regulate or deal with existing
grants of aid, since all aid, past and future, is covered by
the same prohibition. For that reason, it may be stated,
on the basis of the case-law of the Court and of the aids
code referred to, that the aid prohibited by Article 4(c) is
direct aid, whether or not specifically intended for ECSC
undertakings. Measures adopted by Member States which
produce indirect effects or repercussions on competition
are subject to different rules, in particular Article 67 of
the ECSC Treaty.