Case C-233/02: Action brought on 21 June 2002 by French Republic against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-07-27
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, France, United States, action for annulment (EU), trade cooperation

C 180/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.7.2002

— Order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Action brought on 18 June 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposition expired on 21 August
2001.

(1) OJ L 101, 1.4.1998, p. 17.

Action brought on 18 June 2002 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg

(Case C-227/02)

(2002/C 180/30)

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 18 June 2002 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Denis Martin and Miguel França,
of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,
regulations and administrative provisions needed in order
to comply with Directive 97/55/EC (1) of the European
Parliament and of
the Council of 6 October 1997
amending Directive 84/450/EEC (2) concerning mislead-
ing advertising so as to include comparative advertising,
or,
in any event, by failing to have informed the
Commission of any such laws, regulations or administrat-
ive provisions, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has
failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

2. Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposition expired on 23 April
2000.

(1) OJ L 290, 23.10.1997, p. 18.
(2) OJ L 250, 19.9.1984, p. 17.

(Case C-228/02)

(2002/C 180/31)

An action against The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 18 June 2002 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Denis Martin and Miguel França,
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force the
laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
to comply with Directive 97/7/EC of
the European
Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 1997 on
the protection of consumers in respect of distance
contracts (1), or, in any event, by failing to communicate
to the Commission the adoption of such provisions, the
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil
its
obligations under that directive;

— Order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposition expired on 4 June
2000.

(1) OJ 1997 L 144, p. 19.

Action brought on 21 June 2002 by French Republic
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-233/02)

(2002/C 180/32)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 21 June 2002 by the French Republic,
represented by R. Abraham, G. de Bergues and P. Boussaroque,
acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

27.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 180/19

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision whereby the Commission concluded
with the United States of America guidelines on legislative
cooperation and transparency;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Appeal brought on 24 June 2002 by the European
Ombudsman against the judgment delivered on 10 April
2002 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities in Case T-209/00 between
F. Lamberts and the European Ombudsman

(Case C-234/02 P)

(2002/C 180/33)

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Despite the careful language of the document attached to
a memorandum which the Commission sent to Com-
mittee 133, responsible for the common commercial
policy, matters of substance lead the French Government
to think that the guidelines are a genuine undertaking
and place obligations on the parties. In those guidelines
are very precisely set out the objectives pursued, the
scope of action and the measures to adopt in order to
achieve the objectives set. The fact that those guidelines
are not, of themselves, intended to modify the state of
Community law cannot disguise the fact
they
constitute, at the very least, an undertaking to cooperate
on the part of the parties. Moreover, the provisions under
Title VI of
the guidelines, regarding monitoring of
their implementation, clearly demonstrate the mandatory
nature of the cooperation undertaking entered into by
the parties. The existence of a surveillance mechanism is
witness to the fact that the authors of the guidelines
clearly sought to rule out the parties seeking refuge
behind the voluntary nature of the cooperation to negate
the undertaking to which they had subscribed.

that

Since those guidelines must be seen as an international
agreement within the meaning of Article 300 EC, the
measure whereby the Commission decided to enter into
it is vitiated by lack of competence and cannot but be
annulled.

— The guidelines are also contrary to the EC Treaty inas-
much as they amount to a restriction of the sole power
to propose which the Commission enjoys in the context
of the Community legislative process and they affect the
whole of the legislative process.

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 10 April 2002
by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-209/00 between F. Lamberts
and the European Ombudsman was brought before the Court
of Justice of the European Communities on 24 June 2002 by
the European Ombudsman represented by J. Sant’Anna, with
an address for service in Luxembourg.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision concerning the admissibility of the
action for damages in the judgment of the Court of First
Instance delivered on 10 April 2002 in Case T-209/00
Frank Lamberts v European Ombudsman and thus declare
that that action is inadmissible.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Breach of Community law

The decision at issue contravenes the constitutional scheme
established by the Treaty, concerning the liability of the
Ombudsman. In reviewing the legality of the inquiry procedure
conducted by the Ombudsman and of the decision closing the
case, the Court of First Instance overstepped the limits of
judicial review of action by the Ombudsman. It carried out a
review of the Ombudsman’s exercise of his mandate, a review
which the treaties assign to the European Parliament and
which had already been carried out by that institution.

In declaring the case admissible the Court of First Instance
failed to distinguish between actions for damages, on the one
hand, and actions for annulment and actions for failure to act,
on the other. The Ombudsman does not in the least deny that
it is open to a citizen to bring an action for damages against
the Ombudsman on the ground of
the latter’s possibly
wrongful action or behaviour causing damage to the former.
However, whilst the Court of First Instance rightly found that
the Treaty confers on citizens a right to submit complaints to
the Ombudsman and to receive an answer from him, it was
wrong to conclude that it could review the Ombudsman’s