Case C-157/01 P: Appeal brought on 12 April 2001 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-156/98 between RJB Mining PLC and Commission of the European Communities, supported by RAG Aktiengesellschaft and Federal Republic of Germany
Date: 2001-07-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: General Court (EU), State aid, action for annulment (EU), coal industry, infringement of EU law, merger

14.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 200/39

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Centrale Raad
van Beroep by order of 21 March 2001 in the disputes
between R. P. van der Duin and ANOZ Zorgverzekering-
en UA and ANOZ Zorgverzekeringen UA and T.W. van
Wegberg-van Brederode

Appeal brought on 12 April 2001 by the Federal Republic
of Germany against the judgment delivered on 31 January
2001 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities in Case T-156/98 between
RJB Mining PLC and Commission of the European Com-
munities, supported by RAG Aktiengesellschaft and Fed-
eral Republic of Germany

(Case C-156/01)

(2001/C 200/71)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 21 March 2001 by the
Centrale Raad van Beroep (Higher Social Security Court),
which was received at the Court Registry on 10 April 2001,
for a preliminary ruling in the disputes between R. P. van der
Duin and ANOZ Zorgverzekeringen UA, a mutual guarantee
society, and ANOZ Zorgverzekeringen UA and T.W. van
Wegberg-van Brederode on the following questions:

1. Does Article 22(1)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1)
also apply to (a member of the family of) a pensioner who
is entitled under Article 28 of Regulation No 1408/71 to
receive benefits from the institution of the place of
residence, (in the present cases from the French or the
Spanish sickness assurance funds respectively),
those
benefits being chargeable to the institution competent in
of Regulation
accordance with Article
No 1408/71, that is to say the Netherlands sickness
assurance fund, in a situation in which the pensioner (or
a member of his family) travels to the competent Member
State in order to receive medical treatment?

28(2)(a)

2.

3.

If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative, which insti-
tution is responsible for granting the authorisation
referred to in Article 22(1)(c) of Regulation No 1408/71?

If the answer to Question 1 is negative, do the provisions
of Article 21 or those of Article 31 of Regulation
No 1408/71 govern entitlement to benefits of (a member
of the family) of a pensioner who is entitled under
Article 28 of Regulation No 1408/71 to receive benefits
from the institution of the place of residence, (in the
present cases from the French or the Spanish sickness
assurance funds respectively), those benefits being charge-
able to the institution competent in accordance with
Article 28(2)(a) of Regulation No 1408/71, that is to say
the Netherlands sickness assurance fund, in a situation
where the person concerned is staying in the territory of
the competent State?

(1) OJ 1996 L 323, p. 38.

(Case C-157/01 P)

(2001/C 200/72)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 31 January 2001
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-156/98 RJB Mining PLC and
Commission of the European Communities, supported by
RAG Aktiengesellschaft and Federal Republic of Germany,
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 12 April 2001 by the Federal Republic of
Germany, represented by Ministerialrat Wolf-Dieter Plessing,
Oberregierungsrat Dr Thomas Jürgensen, Bundesministerium
der Finanzen, and Martina Maier, Haarmann Hemmelrath,
Paris.

The appellant

1.

2.

3.

claims that the Court should set aside the judgment of
the Court of First
Instance of 31 January 2001
[T-156/98 (1)] in so far as it held that the application was
founded;

continues to seek the form of order sought at First
Instance;

claims that the applicant at First Instance should be
ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— The Court of First Instance infringed Community law
because it declared the application admissible even
though the applicant, not being in an actual or potential
competitive position, cannot be regarded as individually
concerned by the contested decision and because the
applicant, inter alia in view of the commitment given by
RAG in the framework of the merger, had no interest in
bringing proceedings.

the

— The CFI misapplied Article 66(2) of the ECSC Treaty in
that it incorrectly assumed that the Commission, when
carrying out
competition under
analysis of
Article 66(2) ECSC, could not fail to examine whether,
and if so to what extent, the financial and thus economic
whether, and if so to what extent, the financial and thus
economic power of the merged entity was strengthened
by all the elements which might constitute State aid,
in particular, however, benefits which may have been
contained in the DEM 1 purchase price for SBW.

C 200/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

14.7.2001

— As regards examination of the merits, the CFI failed to
comply with its obligation to stay within the limits of
the application and exceeded them, thereby infringing
Community law.

— The CFI also infringed Article 33(1), second sentence,
ECSC in that it failed to examine whether there had been
failure by the Commission to observe a
a manifest
relevant provision and failed to appreciate that
the
application did not even satisfy the requirement to show
the alleged manifestness of the infringement.

— Furthermore, the CFI infringed Article 33(1) ECSC in so
far as it annulled the contested decision as a whole and
not merely with regard to the part of the decision with
which the CFI found fault, namely the authorisation of
the merger of RAG with SBW, not the merger with
Preussag Anthrazit GmbH.

— Finally, the CFI infringed its duty to state reasons, because
it did not adequately deal with the arguments submitted
by the Commission and the interveners in their pleadings
and at the hearing, even though they related to main
grounds of the decision.

(1) Not yet published in the European Court Reports.

— order the European Commission to compensate him for

material and non-material damage;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas and main arguments

— Breach of the right to a fair hearing: Before the decision
was taken to transfer him, the appellant was approached
in vague and general terms by his line manager for alleged
lack of care and attention in his work, which was
subsequently contradicted in his staff report. It was thus
that, without being heard beforehand and without the
chance to make any comments, a decision to transfer him
was taken by the appointing authority.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) of the Austrian Republic by
decision of that Court of 14 March 2001 in the case of
Betriebsrat der Vertretung der Europäischen Kommission
in O¨ sterreich (Works council of the Representation of
the European Commission in Austria) v Commission of
the European Communities

Appeal brought on 12 April 2001 by Franco Campoli
against the judgment delivered on 6 March 2001 by the
Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-100/00 between Franco
Campoli and Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-165/01)

(2001/C 200/74)

(Case C-161/01 P)

(2001/C 200/73)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 6 March 2001
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-100/00 between Franco
Campoli and the Commission of the European Communities
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 12 April 2001 by Franco Campoli, represent-
ed by S. Diana, lawyer, with an address for service in Brussels.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of

6 March 2001 in Case T-100/00;

— annul the two decisions taken by Mr Lemmel (No 05266
of 11 June 1999 and of 2 December 1999), concerning
the removal of Franco Campoli and the appointment of
Chantal Bruetschy to the ‘Foodstuffs — Legislation and
scientific and technical aspects’ unit;

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a decision of the Oberster Gericht-
shof of 14 March 2001, which was received at the Court
Registry on 18 April 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Betriebsrat der Vertretung der Europäischen Kommission in
O¨ sterreich (Works council of
the
the Representation of
European Commission in Austria) v Commission of
the
European Communities, on the following questions:

1.

Is Article 79 of the Conditions of Employment of Other
Servants of the European Communities [Article 3 of
Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 259/68 of
29 February 1968 (1)], under which the conditions of
employment of local staff, in particular: (a) the manner of
their engagement and termination of their contract, (b)
their leave, and (c) their remuneration is to be determined
by each institution in accordance with current rules and
practice in the place where they are to perform their
duties, to be understood as a reference to the relevant
national
in the case of
Austria, also requires the application of the law on labour
relations in the workplace laid down in Part II of the
Austrian Arbeitsverfassungsgesetz (Labour Constitution
Act)?

law on employment, which,