Case C-120/01: Action brought on 16 March 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland
Date: 2001-05-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, Ireland, action for failure to fulfil an obligation, chemical product, decontamination, waste disposal

C 150/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19.5.2001

Action brought on 16 March 2001 by the Commission of
the European Communities against Ireland

(Case C-120/01)

(2001/C 150/26)

An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 16 March 2001 by
the Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Mr Richard Wainwright, acting as agent, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.

The Applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing by 16 September 1999 to prepare
and communicate to the Commission the plans, outlines
and summaries required pursuant to Article 11 and
Article 4(1) of Council Directive 96/59/EC (1) on the
disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinat-
ed terphenyls (PCB/PCT), Ireland has failed to fulfil its
obligations under that Directive;

— order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 11 of the Directive requires Member States to draw up
plans and outlines in connection with the decontamination or
disposal of equipment containing polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), and to communicate these plans and outlines to the
Commission. Article 4(1) obliges Member States to compile
inventories of equipment with certain PCB volumes and to
send summaries of such inventories to the Commission.

To date Ireland has not communicated such plans, outlines
and summaries to the Commission, nor is the Commission in
possession of any other information enabling it to conclude
that Ireland has prepared these plans, outlines and summaries.

(1) OJ L 243, 24.09.1996, p. 31.

Appeal brought on 19 March 2001 by Eoghan O’Hannra-
chain against the judgment delivered on 16 January 2001
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Joined Cases T-97/99 and T-
99/99 between M. Chamier and E. O’Hannrachain and the
European Parliament

(Case C-121/01 P)

(2001/C 150/27)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 January 2001
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Joined Cases T-97/99 and T-99/99
between M. Chamier and E. O’Hannrachain and the European
Parliament was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 19 March 2001 by E. O’Hannra-
chain, represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Brussels.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment delivered on 16 January 2001 by
the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the EC
in Joined Cases T-97/99 and T-99/99;

— consequently, grant the appellant the relief sought
by him in the proceedings at first instance, and thus:

— annul the appointing authority’s decision of 16 July
1998 appointing Mr. L.V. to the post of Director-
General of the Directorate-General for Finance and
Financial Control and the decision of the same date
rejecting the appellant’s application for the post and,
in so far as may be necessary, annul the decision
adopted on 21 January 1999 rejecting the appellant’s
complaint;

— order the respondent to pay damages estimated to
to

and equitable basis,

fair

amount, on a
100 000 euro;

— order the respondent to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

the Court of First

the Staff Regulations without

— Infringement of Article 29 of the Staff Regulations of
officials:
Instance misconstrued
Article 29 of the Staff Regulations by taking the view that
the appointing authority may have recourse to the
the Staff
procedure referred to in Article 29(2) of
Regulations after initiating a recruitment procedure under
Article 29(1) of
first
carrying out an examination of the comparative merits of
the eligible candidates under Article 29(1) with a view to
verifying whether they meet the requirements of the
notice of vacancy. By acting in that way, the appointing
authority failed to examine whether, in the present case
and in accordance with Article 29 of the Staff Regulations,
the promotion/transfer procedure was likely to result in
the appointment of a person possessing the highest levels
of ability, efficiency and integrity.