Case C-243/04 P: Appeal brought on 9 June 2004 by M against the judgment given on 21 April 2004 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) in Case T-172/01 between M and Court of Justice of the European Communities
Date: 2004-07-24
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), divorced person, maintenance obligation, survivor's benefit, widowed person

24.7.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/13

Action brought on 8 June 2004 against the Kingdom of
Belgium by the Commission of the European Commu-
nities

Appeal brought on 9 June 2004 by M against the judgment
given on 21 April 2004 by the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities (First Chamber) in Case T-172/
Justice of the European
01 between M and Court of

(Case C-240/04)

(2004/C 190/21)

An action was brought before the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities on 8 June 2004 by the Commission of the
European Communities, represented by M. Shotter, acting as
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against the
Kingdom of Belgium.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1. Declare that, by not taking the legislative, regulatory and

administrative measures necessary to comply with:

— Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and inter-
connection of, electronic communications networks and
associated facilities (‘Access Directive’); (1)

— Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of
services
electronic
(‘Authorisation Directive’); (2)

communications networks

and

— Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regula-
tory framework for electronic communications networks
and services (‘Framework Directive’); (3)

— Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service
and users' rights relating to electronic communications
networks and services (‘Universal Service Directive’); (4)

or, in any event, by not communicating those provisions to
the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil
its obligations under Article 18 of the Access Directive,
Article 18 of the Authorisation Directive, Article 28 of the
Framework Directive and Article 38 of the Universal Service
Directive.

2. Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and principal arguments:

The time-limit given for transposition of the directives was 24
July 2003.

(1) OJ L 108 of 24.4.2002, p. 7.
(2) OJ L 108 of 24.4.2002, p. 21.
(3) OJ L 108 of 24.4.2002, p. 33.
(4) OJ L 108 of 24.4.2002, p. 51.

Communities

(Case C-243/04 P)

(2004/C 190/22)

An appeal against the judgment given on 21 April 2004 by the
Court of First Instance (First Chamber) in Case T-172/01 M v
Court of Justice of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9
June 2004 by M, represented by H. Tagaras, avocat.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare the present appeal admissible and well-founded;

— set aside the contested judgment and declare that she is
entitled to a survivor's pension in accordance with Article
27 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;

— order the defendant to pay the costs both at first instance

and on appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested judgment is vitiated by a ‘reach of procedure’
and an ‘infringement of Community law’, both within the
meaning of Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice.
The applicant also relies on the European Convention on
Human Rights, in particular, on the right to a fair trial.

The plea of
‘breach of procedure’ concerns questions of
evidence. It consists of two parts. The first relates to the deci-
sion of the Court of First Instance to dismiss, as out of time,
two affidavits made before a notary which were produced after
the close of the written procedure, but in order to reply to
further documents and arguments in the rejoinder. The second
is based on the fact that the Court of First Instance failed to
take account of two other affidavits which were annexed to the
initial claim and the originating application.

The plea alleging infringement of Community law consists of
an error of law committed by the Court of First Instance in the
application of Article 27 of Annex VIII of the Staff Regulations,
by reason of the incorrect legal classification of the agreement
made in the spring of 1999 between the applicant and her ex-
husband. The appeal alleges, inter alia, that the contested judg-
ment did not recognise that the 1999 agreement was a mainte-
nance agreement, but arbitrarily and incorrectly characterised it
as an act of ‘mere courtesy’.