Case C-219/01 P: Appeal brought on 28 May 2001 against the decision handed down on 28 March 2001 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) in Case T-130/00 between Javier Reyna González del Valle and the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-07-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), appointment of staff, infringement of EU law, regulations for civil servants

C 212/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

28.7.2001

Appeal brought on 28 May 2001 against the decision
handed down on 28 March 2001 by the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber)
in Case T-130/00 between Javier Reyna Gonza´lez del
Valle and the Commission of the European Communities

to Community law is a decision of a supreme court of a
Member State, such as, as in this case, the Verwaltungsger-
ichtshof?

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is yes:

(Case C-219/01 P)

(2001/C 212/31)

An appeal against the decision handed down on 28 March
2001 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-
ties (First Chamber) in Case T-130/00 between Javier Reyna
Gonza´lez del Valle and the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 28 May 2001 by Javier Reyna
Gonza´lez del Valle, represented by J.M. Valoria de Arana,
abogado.

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

— set aside the contested order in its entirety and

— uphold all the claims which he brought before the Court

of First Instance.

Is the case-law of the Court of Justice according to which
it is for the legal system of each Member State to
determine which court or tribunal has jurisdiction to
hear disputes involving individual rights derived from
Community law (see inter alia Case C-54/96 Dorsch
[1997] ECR I-4961) also applicable when the conduct of
an institution purportedly contrary to Community law is
a judgment of a supreme court of a Member State, such
as, as in this case, the Verwaltungsgerichtshof?

3.

If the answer to Question 2 is yes:

Does the legal interpretation given in the above-men-
tioned judgment of the Verwaltungsgerichtshof, accord-
ing to which the special length of service increment is a
form of loyalty bonus, breach a rule of directly applicable
Community law, in particular the prohibition on indirect
discrimination in Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now
Article 39 EC) and the relevant settled case-law of the
Court of Justice?

Pleas in law and main arguments

4.

If the answer to Question 3 is yes:

Although Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations of
Officials of the European Communities do not make any
distinction between irregularities which render a measure void
and those which render it merely voidable, that does not mean
that an administrative measure which is void is always subject
to the time-limits for bringing proceedings prescribed by those
articles.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht
für Zivilrechtsachen (Regional Civil Court) — by order of
that court of 7 May 2001 in the case of Dr. Gerhard
Köbler v Republic of Austria

(Case C-224/01)

(2001/C 212/32)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Landesgericht für
Zivilrechtsachen of 7 May 2001, which was received at the
Court Registry on 6 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Dr. Gerhard Köbler v Republic of Austria on the
following questions:

1.

Is the case-law of the Court of Justice to the effect that it
is immaterial as regards State liability for a breach of
Community law which institution of a Member State is
responsible for that breach (see Joined Cases C-46/93 and
C-48/93 Factortame [1996 ECR I-1029) also applicable
when the conduct of an institution purportedly contrary

Is this rule of directly applicable Community law such as
to create a subjective right for the plaintiff in the main
proceedings?

5.

If the answer to Question 4 is yes?:

Does the Court of Justice of the European Community
have sufficient information in the content of the order
for reference to enable it to rule itself as to whether the
Verwaltungsgerichtshof in the circumstances of the main
proceedings described has clearly and significantly
exceeded the discretion available to it, or is it for the
referring Austrian court to answer that question.

Action brought on 6 June 2001 by the Commission of the
European Communities against the Kingdom of Denmark

(Case C-226/01)

(2001/C 212/33)

An action against the Kingdom of Denmark was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
6 June 2001 by the Commission of the European Communi-
ties, represented by Hans Støvlbæk, acting as Agent, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.