Case C-309/01 P: Appeal brought on 3 August 2001 by Council of the European Union against the judgment delivered on 14 June 2001 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-230/99 between Hans Mc Auley and Council of the European Union
Date: 2001-10-13
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European official, action for annulment (EU), appointment of staff, equal treatment, power to appoint

C 289/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

13.10.2001

Appeal brought on 3 August 2001 by Council of the
European Union against
the judgment delivered on
14 June 2001 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-230/99
between Hans Mc Auley and Council of the European
Union

did not take account of the interest of the service, contrary
to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations.

(1) OJ 2000 C 6, p. 29.

(Case C-309/01 P)

(2001/C 289/30)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 June 2001 by
the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-230/99 (1) between Hans
Mc Auley and Council of the European Union was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
3 August 2001 by the Council of the European Union,
represented by Frederic Anton and Alain Pilette, acting as
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment in so far as it annuls Ms K’s

appointment;

— at the same time dismiss the application at first instance;

— make an appropriate order as to costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Distortion of the contents of the vacancy notice: to claim
knowledge of languages and management skills to be the
two decisive and practically only criteria contained in a
vacancy notice advertising a post which includes middle-
management duties amounts to distortion of the terms of
the vacancy notice taken as a whole.

— Error in law inasmuch as the Court of First Instance
independently carried out its own comparison of the
merits of the candidates and it substituted its assessment
for that of the appointing authority, thus going beyond
verifying whether there was a manifest error of assess-
ment. By taking the view that Ms K’s experience was
‘limited’, whereas that of the applicant was ‘very great’,
the Court of First Instance encroached directly into ‘value
judgment’ comparison, which is however the exclusive
domain of the appointing authority.

— Error in law when the Court of First Instance examined
the comparative merits of the candidates, inasmuch as it

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di
Stato in sede giurisdizionale, Quinta Sezione by order of
that court of 29 May 2001 in the case of Comune di
Udine against Diddi Dino Figli s.r.l. and A.G.E.S.I. —
Associazione Nazionale Imprese Gestione and AMGA —
Azienda Multiservizi s.p.a. against Diddi Dino Figh s.r.l
and A.G.E.S.I.

(Case C-310/01)

(2001/C 289/31)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Consiglio di Stato in
sede giurisdizionale, Quinta Sezione (Fifth Chamber of the
Council of State, Judicial Division) of 29 May 2001, which was
received at the Court Registry on 7 August 2001, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Comune di Udine against
Diddi Dino Figli s.r.l. and A.G.E.S.I. — Associazione Nazionale
Imprese Gestione and AMGA — Azienda Multiservizi s.p.a.
against Diddi Dino Figh s.r.l and A.G.E.S.I. on the following
questions:

a) whether,

under Article 2 of Council Directive
92/50/EEC (1) of 18 June 1992, the rules laid down in
that directive apply to the subject-matter of the present
case (concerning a contract for the supply of heat energy
and the provision of a range of services relating to the
running of the heating installations), since the contract
appears to concern the supply of goods rather than the
provision of services, and what construction is to be
placed on that article in order to determine whether the
contested measures are compatible with Community law;

b) whether, under Articles 6 and 1(b) of Council Directive
92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992, the rules laid down in that
directive are to be held to apply to the subject-matter of
the present case, and what is the construction to be
placed on that article in order to determine whether the
contested measures are compatible with Community law.

(1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.