Case C-161/01 P: 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
Date: 2001-07-14
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), infringement of EU law, rights of the defence, staff assessment

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,