Case C-323/06 P: Appeal brought on 21 July 2006 by Theodoros Kallianos against the judgment delivered by the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) on 17 May 2006 in Case T-93/04 Kallianos v Commission
Date: 2006-09-16
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, European official, General Court (EU), action for annulment (EU), divorced person, maintenance obligation, matrimonial law, redemption, seizure of goods

16.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/27

By its second complaint, the Commission complains that the
Grand Duchy of Luxembourg failed fully to transpose Article
3(1)(a) of Directive 96/71/EC in as much as the national legisla-
tion restricts the concept of ‘minimum rest periods’ to weekly
rest, excluding other rest periods such as daily rest or breaks.

By its third and fourth complaints, the Commission finally
pleads infringement of Articles 49 EC and 50 EC attributable to
the obligation imposed on undertakings whose workers carry
on permanent or temporary activity in Luxembourg (1) to
make available to the Inspection du Travail et des Mines ‘before
the start of the works’, ‘at the mere request’ and ‘as quickly as
possible’ the particulars necessary for a control, and (2) to
designate an ‘ad hoc’ agent resident in Luxembourg responsible
for keeping the documents necessary for monitoring the obliga-
tions on those undertakings.

(1) Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the
framework of the provision of services (OJ L 18 of 21.1.1997, p. 1).
(2) Council Directive 91/533/EEC of 14 October 1991 on an employ-
er's obligation to inform employees of the conditions applicable to
the contract or employment relationship (OJ 1991 L 288, p. 32).

(a) annul the decision of the Appointing Authority of 28
November 2003 replying to the complaint brought by
Mr Kallianos under No R/335/03 of 2 July 2003;

(b) call upon the Commission to repay to the appellant the
whole of the payments and amounts it unjustifiably
withheld in respect of the remuneration payable to the
appellant from the date on which he was granted a
divorce by judgment of the Court of First Instance,
Athens, on 8 March 1999, including indexation of the
amount overpaid by way of maintenance pursuant to
the unilateral decision of 18 September 2002 adopted
by the Commission, together with interest at the statu-
tory rate from the date when amounts were first with-
held from the appellant's monthly salary;

including the costs of

(c) order the Commission to pay the costs of effecting
service,
translating the Greek
judgments into French, documents which were in any
event made available to the Commission in good time,
amounting to EUR 1 500,
together with the costs
incurred by the appellant as a result of being obliged to
deal
repeatedly with the Commission's arguments,
assessed at 20 % of the sum ordered to be paid in the
order for costs or other such sum as the Court deems
equitable;

(d) order the Commission of the European Communities to
pay all of the costs incurred in the proceedings before
the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance.

Appeal brought on 21 July 2006 by Theodoros Kallianos
against the judgment delivered by the Court of First
Instance (Third Chamber) on 17 May 2006 in Case T-93/04
Kallianos v Commission

Pleas in law and main arguments

(Case C-323/06 P)

(2006/C 224/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Theodoros Kallianos (represented by: G. Archam-
beau, avocat)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities

Form of order sought

— declare the appeal admissible and well founded;

— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities of 17 May 2006 in Case T-93/04
Kallianos v Commission of the European Communities in all
material respects and, by doing what the Court of First
Instance of the E. C. ought to have done:

By his appeal, the appellant maintains, firstly, that the Com-
munity institutions lack competence to act in the place of the
Member States or to interpret their national law in the context
of divorce proceedings.

Secondly, the appellant challenges the argument that the effect
of a divorce decree is not automatically to terminate interim
measures ordered by a court in interlocutory proceedings and
that such a decree must be served by writ by a court officer on
the Commission in order that the latter may,
in particular,
consider itself released from its obligation to make deductions
from the salary of one spouse (an official) for the benefit of the
other spouse. In that regard, the appellant submits, in essence,
that the Commission is not a third party seised of the matter or
an ordinary employer, given that, under the Staff Regulations,
all officials are under an obligation to provide information and
to be transparent with regard to their personal circumstances.
He also argues that an order awarding maintenance to a spouse
in the course of divorce proceedings is automatically termi-
nated on pronouncement of decree absolute and that it is there-
fore sufficient that the Commission is simply aware of that
decree for the maintenance obligations to cease without there
being any need for such a decree to be served by writ by a
court officer.