Case C-61/01 P: Appeal brought on 12 February 2001 by Francis Panichelli against the judgment delivered on 13 December 2000 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-130/98 and T-131/98 between Francis Panichelli and European Parliament
Date: 2001-04-07
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), administrator, promotion, servant (EU), termination of a contract

7.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 108/9

Action brought on 12 February 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-60/01)

(2001/C 108/12)

An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 February
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by H. Støvlbæk and J. Adda, acting as Agents, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:

down

by Directives

— declare that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary
and appropriate in order to ensure either that all inciner-
ation plants currently operating in France are being
operated in accordance with the combustion conditions
and
laid
89/429/EEC (2) or that they cease to operate by the due
date, namely 1 December 1990 as regards new plants
and 1 December 1996 as regards existing plants, the
French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
Article 4(1) of Directive 89/369/EEC and Articles 2(a)
and 4 of Directive 89/429/EEC and under the third
paragraph of Article 249 of the Treaty establishing the
European Community;

89/369/EEC (1)

— order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission states that it is undeniably apparent from the
information made publicly available by the French authorities
themselves, and from the response of those authorities to the
letter giving formal notice and the reasoned opinion, that
numerous incinerators have been operating — and at least
seven of them are continuing to operate — without complying
with the combustion conditions laid down in Article 4(1) of
Directive 89/369/EEC and Articles 2(a) and 4 of Directive
89/429/EEC.

(1) Council Directive 89/369/EEC of 8 June 1989 on the prevention
of air pollution from new municipal waste incineration plants (OJ
L 163, 14.6.1989, p. 32).

(2) Council Directive 89/429/EEC of 21 June 1989 on the reduction
of air pollution from existing municipal waste-incineration plants
(OJ L 203, 15.7.1989, p. 50).

Appeal brought on 12 February 2001 by Francis Panichelli
against the judgment delivered on 13 December 2000 by
the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Joined Cases T-130/98 and
T-131/98 between Francis Panichelli and European Parlia-
ment

(Case C-61/01 P)

(2001/C 108/13)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 December
2000 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Joined Cases T-130/98 and
T-131/98 between Francis Panichelli and European Parliament
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 12 February 2001 by Francis Panichelli,
represented by Eric Boigelot, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

1.

declare the appeal admissible and founded;

2.

accordingly:

(a)

set aside the contested judgment;

(b)

itself adjudicate on the dispute and uphold the
appellant’s claims at first instance:

— annul the implied decision of the appointing
authority rejecting the request made by the
applicant on 11 July 1997, by which he was
neither made up to Grade A 4 with effect from
1 January 1993, nor granted the promotion
which he sought, nor were there drawn up staff
reports in respect of the periods 1993 to 1994
and 1995 to 1996;

— annul the implied rejection of the complaint
lodged on 26 January 1998 against the implied
decision to reject his request of 11 July 1997;

— order the defendant to pay to the appellant,
subject to increase in the course of the proceed-
ings, BEF 250 000 (EUR 6 191,91) by way of
damages to make good the material and non-
material damage caused to him;

— annul the decision of the Bureau of the Euro-
pean Socialists Party group (ESP) to terminate
the appellant’s temporary contract with effect
from the evening of 2 October 1998, brought
to the appellant’s notice on 2 July 1998 by a
letter from the Chair of the ESP Group, Ms
P. Green, dated 30 June 1998 and sent by
registered post on 1 July 1998;

C 108/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.4.2001

— annul the express rejection of the complaint
lodged by the appellant on 18 May 1998,
notified to him by registered letter of
10 December 1998;

(c)

order, in any event, the defendant to pay all the
costs both at first instance and in the present appeal.

Pleas and main arguments

Infringement of Community law, in particular Article 33 of
the Statute of the Court of Justice, given that the obligation to
provide reasons implies, in particular, that the grounds relied
on are admissible in law, that is to say adequate, relevant, free
of errors of law and fact and consistent.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Member States are required by the binding character of
the third paragraph of Article 249 and Article 10 EC (ex third
paragraph of Article 189 and Article 5 of the EC Treaty) to
adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into national
law before the expiry of the time-limit laid down for that
purpose and to communicate those measures immediately to
the Commission. That time-limit expired on 30 October
1999 without the Hellenic Republic having notified to the
Commission the provisions transposing the directive in ques-
tion into national law.

(1) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p. 26.

Appeal brought on 14 February 2001 by Committee of
the Cotton and Allied Textile Industries of the European
Union (Eurocoton) and others against the judgment
delivered on 29 November 2000 by the Second Chamber,
Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in case T-213/97 (1) between
Committee of the Cotton and Allied Textile Industries of
the European Union (Eurocoton) and others and Council
of the European Union, supported by United Kingdom

(Case C-76/01 P)

(2001/C 108/15)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 29 November
2009 by the Second Chamber, Extended Composition, of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case
T-213/97 between Committee of the Cotton and Allied Textile
Industries of the European Union (Eurocoton) and others and
Council of the European Union, supported by United Kingdom,
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 14 February 2001 by Committee of the
Cotton and Allied Textile Industries of the European Union
(Eurocoton), established in Brussels, Belgium, Ettlin Gesell-
schaft für Spinnerei und Weberei AG, established in Ettlingen,
Germany, Textil Hof Weberei GmbH & Co. KG, established in
Hof, Germany, H. Hecking Söhne GmbH & Co., established in
Stadtlohn, Germany, Spinnweberei Uhingen GmbH, estab-
lished in Uhingen, Germany, F.A. Kümpers GmbH & Co.,
established in Rheine, Germany, Tenthorey SA, established in
Eloyes, France, Les Tissages des Héritiers de G. Perrin —
Groupe Alain Thirion (HPG-GAT Tissages), established in
Comimont, France, E´ tablissements des Fils de Victor Perrin
SARL, established in Thiéfosse, France, Filatures et Tissages de
Saulxures-sur-Moselotte, established in Saulxures-sur-Moselot-
te, France, Tissage Mouline Thillot, established in Thillot,
France, Filature Niggeler & Küpfer SpA, established in Capriolo,
Italy, Standardtela SpA, established in Milan, Italy, represented
by Clive Stanbrook QC and Philip Bentley QC, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.

Action brought on 13 February 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-
lic

(Case C-64/01)

(2001/C 108/14)

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 Febru-
ary 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser,
and Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos, a national civil servant on
secondment to its Legal Service.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1.

declare that, by failing to adopt and to notify to the
Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
comply fully with Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 Sep-
tember 1996 (1) concerning integrated pollution preven-
tion and control, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil
its obligations under the EC Treaty;

2.

order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.