Case C-7/06 P: Appeal brought on  9 January 2006  by Beatriz Salvador García against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of  25 October 2005  in Case T-205/02 Beatriz Salvador García v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2006-03-11
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, General Court (EU), allowances and expenses, appeal, regulations for civil servants

C 60/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.3.2006

— Order the Community, represented by the Council, to
compensate the appellants for the certain and actual
loss suffered as a consequence of the Council's acts, loss
which includes both damage sustained and loss of
profit, as referred to in this appeal and its annexes;

— Order the Community, represented by the Council, to

pay any default interest.

(4) Order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellants have brought their appeal against the judgment
of the Court of First Instance of 19 October 2005 because that
Court dismissed their action for a declaration of non-contrac-
tual liability which they had brought against the Council of the
European Union to obtain compensation for the loss suffered
as a result of the Council's authorisation of the transfer to the
French Republic of part of the anchovy quota allocated to the
Portuguese Republic.

The appellants consider that the Court of First Instance erred in
law in its assessment of whether there had been a sufficiently
serious breach of a higher-ranking rule of law and of the prin-
ciples of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expec-
tations. In the view of the appellants, and contrary to what was
held by the Court of First Instance, the Council did not have
the discretion attributed to it by that Court, and approved the
transfer of the fishing quotas in breach of the rules governing
procedure and competence laid down for it by the Act of
Accession of
the Kingdom of Spain and Regulations Nos
685/95 (6) and 3760/92 (7).

The appellants consider that the Court of First Instance also
erred in law in denying that the principle of relative stability
it
could confer rights on individuals. If that were the case,
would render the Common Fisheries Policy meaningless and
infringe the appellants' right to effective legal protection,
in
breach of what the Court of First Instance itself has held.

Lastly, the appellants allege that the Court of First Instance
infringed their rights of defence, since not only did it fail to
take account of the reports produced at the proceedings when
the damage suffered as a consequence of the Council's acts was
being assessed, it also rejected as not having been submitted at
the appropriate time a request for measures of enquiry, which
by definition the appellants could only make in the course of
the proceedings.

between 1995 and 2000 a transfer of fishing quotas from
Portugal to France which the Court of Justice itself had already
declared to be in breach of the law.

(1) Council Regulation of 22 December 1995 fixing, for certain fish
stocks and groups of fish stocks, the total allowable catches for
1996 and certain conditions under which they may be fished OJ
1995 L 330, p. 1.

(2) Council Regulation of 20 December 1996 fixing, for certain fish
stocks and groups of fish stocks, the total allowable catches for
1997 and certain conditions under which they may be fished OJ
1997 L 66, p. 1.

(3) Council Regulation of 19 December 1997 fixing, for certain fish
stocks and groups of fish stocks, the total allowable catches for
1998 and certain conditions under which they may be fished OJ
1998 L 12, p. 1.

(4) Council Regulation of 18 December 1998 fixing, for certain fish
stocks and groups of fish stocks, the total allowable catches for
1999 and certain conditions under which they may be fished OJ
1999 L 13, p. 1.

(5) Council Regulation of 15 December 2000 fixing for 2001 the
fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish
stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters
and, for Community vessels, in waters where limitations in catch
are required OJ 2000 L 334 , p. 1.

(6) Council Regulation of 27 March 1995 on the management of the
fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and
resources OJ 1995 L 71, p. 5.

(7) Council Regulation of 20 December 1992 establishing a Com-
munity system for fisheries and aquaculture OJ 1992 L 389, p. 1.

Appeal brought on 9 January 2006 by Beatriz Salvador
García against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
(First Chamber) of 25 October 2005 in Case T-205/02
Beatriz Salvador García v Commission of the European
Communities

(Case C-7/06 P)

(2006/C 60/49)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

For all these reasons, the appellants claim that the Court of
Justice of the European Communities should declare the ruling
given by the Court of First Instance in its judgment of 19
October 2005 to be in breach of the law and declare that the
liability by effecting
Community incurred extra-contractual

An appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
(First Chamber) of 25 October 2005 in Case T-205/02 Beatriz
Salvador García v Commission of the European Communities was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities on 9 January 2006 by Beatriz Salvador García, repre-
sented by R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, D. Domínguez Pérez
and A. Sayagués Torres, lawyers.

11.3.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 60/27

The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:

(1) Declare this appeal admissible;

(3) Order the Commission of the European Communities to
pay all the costs of the proceedings before the Court of
Justice and of those before the Court of First Instance.

(2) Annul the judgment of the First Chamber of the Court of
First Instance of 25 October 2005 and, if appropriate, refer
the case back to the Court of First Instance;

Pleas in law and main arguments

(3) Order the Commission of the European Communities to
pay all the costs of the proceedings before the Court of
Justice and of those before the Court of First Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This appeal is based on a single plea: infringement by the CFI
of Community law in paragraphs 36 to 59 of the judgment
under appeal. In particular, the appellant takes the view that
the CFI incorrectly interpreted the term ‘circumstances arising
from work done for another State’ used in the second indent of
Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations.

Appeal brought on 9 January 2006 by Anna Herrero
Romeu against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
(First Chamber) of 25 October 2005 in Case T-298/02
Anna Herrero Romeu v Commission of the European
Communities

(Case C-8/06 P)

(2006/C 60/50)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
(First Chamber) of 25 October 2005 in Case T-298/02 Anna
Herrero Romeu v Commission of the European Communities was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities on 9 January 2006 by Anna Herrero Romeu, represented
by R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, D. Domínguez Pérez and A.
Sayagués Torres, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:

(1) Declare this appeal admissible;

This appeal is based on a single plea: infringement by the CFI
of Community law in paragraphs 23 to 44 of the judgment
under appeal. In particular, the appellant takes the view that
the CFI incorrectly interpreted the term ‘circumstances arising
from work done for another State’ used in the second indent of
Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII of the Staff Regulations.

Appeal brought on 9 January 2006 by Tomás Salazar Brier
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First
Chamber) of 25 October 2005 in Case T-83/03 Tomás
Salazar Brier v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-9/06 P)

(2006/C 60/51)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance
(First Chamber) of 25 October 2005 in Case T-83/03 Tomás
Salazar Brier v Commission of
the European Communities was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities on 9 January 2006 by Tomás Salazar Brier, represented
by R. García-Gallardo Gil-Fournier, D. Domínguez Pérez and A.
Sayagués Torres, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:

(1) Declare this appeal admissible;

(2) Annul the judgment of the First Chamber of the Court of
First Instance of 25 October 2005 and, if appropriate, refer
the case back to the Court of First Instance;

(2) Annul the judgment of the First Chamber of the Court of

First Instance of 25 October 2005;

(3) Order the Commission of the European Communities to
pay all the costs of the proceedings before the Court of
Justice and of those before the Court of First Instance.