Case C-111/02 P: Appeal brought on 25 March 2002 by the European Parliament against the judgment delivered on 23 January 2002 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-237/00 between Patrick Reynolds and the European Parliament.
Date: 2002-06-29
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Parliament, European official, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), indemnification, personnel administration

29.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 156/3

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-
gericht by order of that Court of 19 December 2001 in
the case of Cargo Ray Uluslararasi Tasimacilile ve LTD,
Sezgin Ergin, Demirkapi Mahallesi and Vedat Calis against
Bundesanstalt für Arbeit

Appeal brought on 25 March 2002 by the European
Parliament against the judgment delivered on 23 January
2002 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities in Case T-237/00 between
Patrick Reynolds and the European Parliament.

(Case C-48/02)

(2002/C 156/05)

(Case C-111/02 P)

(2002/C 156/06)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht
(Federal Social Court) of 19 December 2001, received at the
Court Registry on 19 February 2002, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Cargo Ray Uluslararasi Tasimacilile ve LTD,
Sezgin Ergin, Demirkapi Mahallesi and Vedat Calis against
Bundesanstalt für Arbeit on the following questions:

1.

2.

3.

Is Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association
Council of 19 September 1980 on the development
the Association between the European Economic
of
Community and Turkey to be interpreted as prohibiting
a Member State of the Community from introducing
national provisions which, in comparison with the pos-
ition under national law on 1 December 1980, lay down
new restrictions on access to the employment market for
Turkish workers generally, or does the prohibition on
introducing new restrictions under Article 13 of Decision
No 1/80 relate only to the time when a worker is first
legally resident and employed?

Is Article 13 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association
Council of 19 September 1980 on the development
the Association between the European Economic
of
Community and Turkey also to be applied to workers
employed in Turkey, who, as long-distance lorry drivers
engaged in international haulage, regularly pass through
a Member State of the Community without belonging to
the legitimate labour force of that Member State?

Is Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol of 23 Novem-
ber 1970 to the Agreement establishing an Association
between the European Economic Community and Turkey
to be interpreted as meaning that a Turkish worker is
entitled to plead restriction, contrary to that protocol, of
the freedom to provide services?

4. Does a restriction on the freedom to provide services
within the meaning of Article 41(1) of the Additional
Protocol exist where a Member State of the Community,
from the entry into force of the Additional Protocol,
abolishes a previously-existing exemption from the
requirement to have a work permit for Turkish lorry
drivers engaged in international haulage who are
employed by a (Turkish) employer, established in Turkey?

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 23 January 2002
by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-237/00 between Patrick
Reynolds and the European Parliament was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 25 March
2002 by the European Parliament, represented by Hannu von
Hertzen and Dominique Moore, acting as Agents, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First

Instance;

— decide the case definitively, by dismissing as unfounded
the applications for annulment and for compensation;

— alternatively, refer the case back to the Court of First
Instance so that it may determine anew Mr Reynolds’
applications for annulment and for compensation;

— make such costs order as may be appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Insufficiency of the reasoning of

the Court of First
Instance concerning the obligation of the appointing
authority to comply with the ‘minimum conditions’ in
order to terminate the secondment of an official in the
interests of the service to the post of secretary-general of
a political group.

— Failure to have regard to the case-law concerning the

powers of the appointing authority.

— Contradictory reasoning concerning the alleged discretion

of the appointing authority.

— Failure to have regard to the case-law concerning the

rights of the defence.

— Insufficient and contradictory reasoning concerning the
significance of the consequences of reintegration on the
material situation of the person seconded.

— If the Parliament has not committed any unlawful act by
adopting the contested decision, there can be no question,
in the present case, of the Community incurring any non-
contractual liability.