Case C-121/01 P: Appeal brought on 19 March 2001 by Eoghan O'Hannrachain 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
Date: 2001-05-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), professional qualifications, promotion, regulations for civil servants

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.

19.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 150/15

— Disregard of the principle of legality, of the duty to give a
statement of reasons and of the audi alteram partem rule,
on account of the acceptance of documents drawn up
after the adoption of the contested decision.

— Failure to have regard to the obligation to provide a
statement of reasons and violation of the effects attaching
to a vacancy notice: the factual assessment carried out by
the Court of First Instance concerning the qualifications
and experience of Mr L.V. results in an error of law
consisting of the attribution to him of qualifications
corresponding to the requirements of the vacancy notice.
Thus, the Court of First Instance disregarded the effects
arising from a notice of vacancy.

— Failure to have regard to the notion of misuse of powers.

— Failure to have regard to Articles 7 and 27 of the Staff
Regulations and to the principle of non-discrimination:
since Mr L.V. did not possess the appropriate qualifi-
cations, he was in any event incapable of being compared
with other candidates who did.

— Failure to have regard to the principle of sound manage-
ment and proper administration, and breach of
the
obligation to provide a statement of reasons.

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that court of 12
March 2001 in the appeal concerning (1) Dr Karl Friedrich
Strobl, (2) the Mayor of Salzburg, and (3) the land transfer
agent of the Land of Salzburg

(Case C-123/01)

(2001/C 150/28)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-
tungssenat Salzburg of 12 March 2001, received at the Court
Registry on 19 March 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
appeal concerning (1) Dr Karl Friedrich Strobl, (2) the Mayor
of Salzburg, and (3) the land transfer agent of the Land of
Salzburg on the following question:

Are the provisions of Article 56 et seq. of the EC Treaty to be
interpreted as precluding the application of Paragraphs 12, 36
and 43 of the Salzburger Grundverkehrsgesetz (Salzburg Land
Transfer Law) of 1997 in the version published in LGB1.
No. 11/1999, whereby any person who wishes to acquire a
building plot in the federal Land of Salzburg must comply
with a notification or authorisation procedure in respect of the
acquisition of that plot, with the consequence that one of the
fundamental freedoms of the acquirer of title as guaranteed by
the laws of the European Union has been infringed in this
case?

Action brought on 19 March 2001 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(Case C-127/01)

(2001/C 150/29)

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 March
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Marie Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser, and Maria
Patakia, of its Legal Service.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

— 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 98/76/EC of 1 Octo-
ber 1998 (1) amending Directive 96/26/EC on admission
to the occupation of road haulage operator and road
passenger transport operator and mutual recognition
of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal
qualifications intended to facilitate for these operators
the right to freedom of establishment in national and
international transport operations, the Hellenic Republic
has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;

— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Member States are required by the binding character of
the third paragraph of Article 249 EC and Article 10 EC 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 1 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 277 of 14.10.1998.