Case C-71/07 P: Appeal brought on 12 February 2007 by Franco Campoli against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 29 November 2006 in Case T-135/05 Campoli v Commission
Date: 2007-05-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, appeal, pension scheme, regulations for civil servants

C 117/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.5.2007

V

(Announcements)

COURT PROCEEDINGS

COURT OF JUSTICE

Appeal brought on 12 February 2007 by Franco Campoli
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second
Chamber,
on
29 November 2006 in Case T-135/05 Campoli v Commission

Composition)

Extended

delivered

(Case C-71/07 P)

(2007/C 117/02)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant:
S. Rodrigues, lawyers)

(represented by G. Vandersanden, L. Levi

and

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European
Communities (represented by V. Joris and D. Martin, Agents),
Council of the European Union (represented by M. Arpio and
I. Šulce, Agents)

Form of order sought

— annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
of 29 November 2006 in

European Communities
Case T-135/05;

— consequently, grant the applicant the benefit of the forms of
order that he sought at first instance, amended in the light
of
the applicant's claim regarding
household allowance and education allowance and therefore,

the inadmissibility of

— annul

first,

the decision of

the decision of

the Appointing Authority of
13 December 2004 dismissing his complaint, along
with,
the Appointing Authority
contested in the complaint, which amended from 1 May
2004 the weighting applicable to his pension, and,
second, his payslips inasmuch as they apply that decision
from May 2004.

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

— order the defendant to pay the costs at first instance and on

appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant relies on a number of arguments in support of his
single plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of equal
treatment and failure to observe the obligation, binding on the
Community judicature, to state reasons.

The principle was allegedly disregarded, first, in that the Court
of First Instance found that the legislature was entitled to amend
the Staff Regulations by establishing less favourable conditions
than those under the system then in force, on condition that it
provide for a sufficiently long transitional period. The existence
of a transitional period and the examination of whether it was
of sufficient duration are factors falling outside the scope of the
examination of the lawfulness of a new measure in the light of
the principle of equal treatment, observance of which requires
verification by the court of the absence of any arbitrary or
manifestly inappropriate difference in treatment contrary to the
object pursued by the Community legislature. In the present
case, the judgment under appeal allegedly neither defined the
object pursued by the new rules concerning the setting of the
weighting nor, a fortiori, assessed whether there was any arbi-
trary or manifestly inappropriate difference in treatment in rela-
tion to that object. The applicant adds that setting the weighting
at the average level of the cost of living of a country under-
mines both the objective of maintaining the purchasing power
of pensioners and that of guaranteeing their freedom of move-
ment and residence, since pensioners living in the capital of a
country, or in another of its expensive towns or regions, would
have lesser purchasing power than pensioners who have estab-
lished their residence outside that capital or those towns or
regions.

26.5.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 117/3

By his second submission, the applicant maintains that, contrary
to the findings of the judgment under appeal, the new pension
scheme effectively provides for a link to the cost of living in
Brussels, so that the income of pensioners living in Belgium is
set by taking into account solely the cost of living in the capital
of that Member State, whilst the income of pensioners living in
the capitals of other Member States is actually determined by a
weighting which takes into account the average cost of living in
the entire country. The applicant challenges, moreover,
the
finding of the Court of First Instance that the lawfulness of a
Community legislative act cannot depend on the way in which
it is applied in practice, since the measures implementing such
an act are closely linked to the act itself, and relies on a breach
of the rights of the defence and of the principle of the equality
of the parties before the Community judicature, inasmuch as he
knew of the measures implementing the new pension scheme
only after the close of the written procedure.

Respondent: Domenico Valvo

Question referred

May a farmer be refused the compensatory allowance provided
for by Regulation (EEC) No 2328/91 (as amended by Regulation
No 3669/93) and by Regulation (EC) No 950/97 (1) on
improving the efficiency of agricultural structures when he also
receives a pension, in particular, a years-of-service pension?

(1) OJ 1997 L 142, p. 1.

By his final submission, the applicant challenges the Court of
First Instance's finding that he had no legal interest in bringing
proceedings pursuant to Article 241 EC by referring to the
advantage conferred on pensioners living in a ‘less expensive’
Member State.
treatment
reserved for pensioners living in a ‘less expensive’ Member State
as compared with pensioners living in an ‘expensive’ Member
State, he is attacking the breach of the principle of equality of
purchasing power and aiming, thereby, to call into question the
pension scheme resulting from the new Staff Regulations and its
transitional measures.

In complaining of

the different

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di
Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione siciliana (Italy)
lodged on 13 February 2007 — Ispettorato Provinciale
dell'Agricoltura di Enna, Assessorato all'agricoltura e
foreste della regione Sicilia, Regione Sicilia v Domenico
Valvo

(Case C-78/07)

(2007/C 117/03)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Consiglio di Giustizia Amministrativa per la Regione siciliana
(Italy)

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants:
Ispettorato Provinciale dell'Agricoltura di Enna,
Assessorato all'agricoltura e foreste della regione Sicilia, Regione
Sicilia

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht
Bonn (Germany) lodged on 20 February 2007 — Dr Andrea
Raccanelli v Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der
Wissenschaften e.V.

(Case C-94/07)

(2007/C 117/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Arbeitsgericht Bonn

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Dr Andrea Raccanelli

Defendant: Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
Wissenschaften e.V.

zur

Förderung

der

Questions referred

1. Should the applicant be regarded as a worker within the
meaning of the European concept of ‘worker’ if he is not
called upon to provide any more work-related services than
are doctoral students with an employment contract concluded
pursuant to the Bundesangestelltentarifvertrag (federal collec-
tive agreement for public sector workers, ‘BAT/2’)?

2. In the event that the answer to Question 1 is in the negative:
must Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 on freedom
of movement for workers within the Community (1) be inter-
preted as meaning that there is no discrimination only if the
applicant was at least granted the right to choose between an
employment contract and a grant before his period of
doctoral study with the defendant began?