Case C-263/01 P: Appeal brought on 5 July 2001 by Carla Giulietti against the judgment delivered on 2 May 2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-167/99 and T-174/99 between Carla Giulietti and Others and the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-09-01
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), competition (EU), equal treatment

1.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 245/13

Action brought on 4 July 2001 by the European Parlia-
ment against the Council of the European Union

(Case C-260/01)

(2001/C 245/23)

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 4 July 2001 by the European Parliament, represented
by R. Passos and A. Caiola, acting as Agents, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.

The European Parliament claims that the Court should:

— annul, pursuant to Article 230 EC, Council Decision
2001/264/EC of 19 March 2001 adopting the Council’s
security regulations.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Infringement of

acts

adopted jointly pursuant

the EC Treaty, and in particiular
Article 255 thereof: it is clear on reading Articles 255 EC
and 207 EC that the act of the Council mentioned in
Article 207 must be consistent with the general principles
and limits laid down in the basic act referred to in
Article 255(2) EC. It is of fundamental importance that
the heirarchical order of these provisions is complied
with in full by the Parliament, the Council and the
to
Commission if
Article 255(2) EC are to be effective. The act pursuant to
the codecision procedure must be adopted first. Only
then will the three institutions be in a position to lay
down their own specific provisions governing the public’s
right of access to their documents. The basic act in
question, namely Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the
European Parliament and the Council regarding public
access to European Parliament, Council and Commission
documents, was adopted on 30 May 2001. Whilst the
European Parliament and the Commission followed the
order prescribed by Article 255 EC, the Council,
in
infringement thereof, did not, and on 19 March 2001
adopted Decision 2001/264.

— Breach of essential procedural requirements: it is clear
from the express purpose and content of Decision
2001/264/EC that it deals with matters going beyond the
internal operations of the Council. It has in fact created
legal obligations on the part of the Member States and
Community satellite organisations. In order to do that,
the Council ought not to have availed itself of the
provisions of Article 207(3) EC and Article 24 of Council
Decision 2000/396/EC of 5 June 2000, but should
instead have had recourse to a different
legal basis
allowing, in any event, for the initiative of the Com-
mission and the involvement of the European Parliament
in the legislative procedure, such as Article 255 EC and/or
Article 308 EC. By its actions, the Council has thwarted a
prerogative power of the European Parliament.

— Failure by the Council

to fulfil

its duty of sincere
cooperation, as guaranteed by Article 10 EC: the Council
adopted an implementing act before the relevant basic
act had been adopted by the competent institutions.
When the Council adopted its decision, that is to say, on
19 March 2001, the legislative procedure leading to the
adoption of the act provided for in Article 255(2) EC was
already at a very advanced stage. The Council makes no
mention in the contested decision of any urgent reasons
justifying its approach. Nor did it ever indicate to the
Parliament any urgency in connection with the adoption
of its security regulation.

— Breach of the principle of institutional balance.

Appeal brought on 5 July 2001 by Carla Giulietti against
the judgment delivered on 2 May 2001 by the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Joined Cases T-167/99 and T-174/99
between Carla Giulietti and Others and the Commission
of the European Communities

(Case C-263/01 P)

(2001/C 245/24)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 2 May 2001 by
the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Comunities in Joined Cases T-167/99 and T-174/99
between Carla Giulietti and Others and the Commission of the
European Communities was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 5 July 2001 by Carla
Giulietti, represented by S. Diana, 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
2 May 2001 in Joined Cases T-167/99 and T-174/99;

— order the European Commission to pay the cost.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Infringement of the rights of the defence:

The appellant was only informed at the end of the written
procedure before the Court of First Instance as to how
the group of 250 candidates retained for the tests was
broken down as between the two spheres of activity
covered by the competition. She was not informed of
how many candidates had initially chosen each sphere of
activity. The appellant was thus unable to prove inequality
of treatment between candidates on the part of the
selection board.

C 245/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

1.9.2001

— Infringement of the principle of equal treatment:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The Court of First Instance failed to draw all the logical
consequences from the selection board’s decision to
delete certain questions and to take no account of the
answers given to them.

Reference for a preliminary ruling, by the Tribunal de
Grande Instance de Dinan, by judgment of that court of
28 June 2001, in the case of Ministère Public — partie
civile: Comité Région pêches maritimes against Annie
Pansard, Gérard Bourret and Marc Kermarrec

(Case C-265/01)

(2001/C 245/25)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communites by judgment of the Tribunal de Grande
Instance de Dinan of 28 June 2001, received at the Court
Registry on 5 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Ministère Public — partie civile: Comite Region pêches
maritimes against Annie Pansard, Gérard Bourret and Marc
Kermarrec on the following questions:

— Can scallops caught from vessels registered in France (at
Saint-Brieuc and Saint-Malo) in the waters of Jersey (the
Minkies) under licence issued by the Jersey authorities
authorising fishing by diving be regarded as imported
products, in spite of the French legislation which applies
to fish catches the law of the flag of the fishing vessel?

— Is the validity of the Order of 19 March 1980, which
prohibits the unloading of scallops during their close
season, affected by the provisions of
the Treaty of
Maastricht, which prohibit measures having an effect
equivalent to quantitative restrictions on imports?

Action brought on 10 July 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Portuguese
Republic

(Case C-272/01)

(2001/C 245/26)

An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 July
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Teresa Figueira and Gregorio Valero Jordana,
acting as Agents.

(a) Declare that,

— by failing to adopt all the provisions necessary so
that the quality of bathing water conformed to the
values limits set down in Article 3 of the directive;

— by failing to take samples at the minimum frequency

laid down in the annex to the directive;

— by failing to identify all the inshore bathing areas in

Portugal,

the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Directive 76/160/EEC (1) in particular as provided
for in Article 4(1), in conjunction with Article 3, the
annex to the directive and with Article 1(2) and those
provided for in Article 6(1) and (2);

(b) Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Although a derogation was granted under Article 395 of and
Point II-3 of Annex XXXVI to the Act of Accession of Spain
and Portugal to the European Economic Community until
31 December 1992, the level of non-conformity with the
mandatory values set down in the directive was, for the 2000
bathing season, 7.8 % for coastal bathing areas and 31 % for
inland bathing areas, which was even a decrease in conformity
by comparison with the 1999 season.

Furthermore, the Portuguese authorities have still not identified
all the inland bathing areas. There is a discrepancy between
the number of inland bathing areas identified (26) and the
number of ‘riverside beaches’, as described by the Portuguese
authorities, eligible for Community funds (91).

Although there has been 100 % sampling in Portugal in both
coastal bathing areas and inshore bathing areas, that percentage
is only in respect of the bathing areas which have been
identified. Thus, by failing to comply with the minimum
frequency of sampling operations because an insufficient
number of inshore bathing areas have been identified, the
Portuguese Republic has failed to comply with its obligations
under Article 6(1) and (2) of the directive.

(1) Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning

the quality of bathing water (OJ 1976 L 31, p. 1).