Case C-17/07 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 February 2008 — Wineke Neirinck v Commission (Appeal — Staff cases — Temporary staff — Contract staff — Office for Infrastructure and Logistics in Brussels (OIB) — Recruitment procedure — Rejection of candidature — Action for annulment — Action for damages)
Date: 2008-02-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, General Court (EU), action by staff, appeal, personnel administration, servant (EU)

C 107/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.4.2008

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 28 February
2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de
cassation, Belgium) — Paul Abraham, Eugène Dehalleux,
Jacqueline Starck, Robert Beaujean, Patrick Descamps and
Others, Régine Lecomte,
Jacques Deheneffe, Mirèse
Mailleux, Léon Schreiber, Marie-Paule Cornesse, Claude
Farnir, Pascale Bastiaens, Marc Kriescher, Isabelle Lemaire,
Jean-Luc Kriescher, Mauro Altafoglia, Charles Franckaert,
Fernande Pretto v Région wallonne, Société de développe-
ment et de promotion de l'aéroport de Liège Bierset SA, T.
N.T. Express Worldwide (Euro Hub) SA, Société nationale
belge, Cargo
des voies

aériennes-Belgocontrol, État

Airlines Ltd

(Case C-2/07) (1)

the effects of
(Directive 85/337/EEC — Assessment of
projects on the environment — Airport with a runway more
than 2 100 metres in length)

(2008/C 107/08)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Paul Abraham, Eugène Dehalleux, Jacqueline Starck,
and Others., Régine
Robert Beaujean, Patrick Descamps
Lecomte,
Jacques Deheneffe, Mirèse Mailleux, Léon Schreiber,
Marie-Paule Cornesse, Claude Farnir, Pascale Bastiaens, Marc
Kriescher, Isabelle Lemaire, Jean-Luc Kriescher, Mauro Altafoglia,
Charles Franckaert, Fernande Pretto

Defendants: Région wallonne, Société de développement et de
promotion de l'aéroport de Liège Bierset SA, T.N.T. Express
Worldwide
(Euro Hub) SA, Société nationale des voies
aériennes-Belgocontrol, État belge, Cargo Airlines Ltd

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour de cassation — Inter-
pretation of Articles 1, 2 and 4 of Council Directive
85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects
of certain public and private projects on the environment
(OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40) — Notion of ‘project liable to have
significant effects on the environment’ — Airport with a
runway of more than 2 100 metres in length — Work on infra-
structures and work to restructure an existing airport without
extension of the runway — Requirement for an impact assess-
ment

85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of
certain public and private projects on the environment, it is for the
national court to determine, on the basis of the applicable national
legislation, whether such an agreement constitutes a development
consent within the meaning of Article 1(2) of Directive 85/337. It
is necessary, in that context, to consider whether that consent forms
part of a procedure carried out in several stages involving a prin-
cipal decision and implementing decisions and whether account is
to be taken of the cumulative effect of several projects whose impact
on the environment must be assessed globally.

2) Point 12 of Annex II, read in conjunction with point 7 of Annex I,
to Directive 85/337,
in their original version, also encompasses
works to modify the infrastructure of an existing airport, without
extension of the runway, where they may be regarded, in particular
because of their nature, extent and characteristics, as a modification
of the airport itself. That is the case in particular for works aimed
at significantly increasing the activity of the airport and air traffic.
It is for the national court to establish that the competent authori-
ties correctly assessed whether the works at
issue in the main
proceedings were to be subject to an environmental impact assess-
ment.

3) The competent authorities have to take account of the projected
increase in the activity of an airport when examining the environ-
mental effect of modifications made to its infrastructure with a
view to accommodating that increase in activity.

(1) OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 28 February
2008 — Wineke Neirinck v Commission

(Case C-17/07 P) (1)

(Appeal — Staff cases — Temporary staff — Contract staff
— Office for Infrastructure and Logistics in Brussels (OIB)
— Recruitment procedure — Rejection of candidature —
Action for annulment — Action for damages)

(2008/C 107/09)

Language of the case: French

Operative part of the judgment

Parties

1) While an agreement such as the one at issue in the main proceed-
ings is not a project within the meaning of Council Directive

Appellant: Wineke Neirinck (represented by: G. Vandersanden
and L. Levi, avocats)

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/7

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities (represented by: J. Currall and D. Martin, agents)

the European

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of
the Court of First Instance
(Second Chamber) of 14 November 2006 in Case T-494/04
Neirinck v Commission dismissing the application of the appellant
seeking (i) annulment of the Commission's decisions rejecting
her candidature for the post of lawyer in the Buildings Policy
sector of the Office for Infrastructure and Logistics in Brussels
to that post and
(OIB) and appointing another applicant
(ii) award of damages — Concept of
in bringing
proceedings — Obligation to state reasons — Distortion of the
clear sense of the evidence — Misuse of powers — Interests of
the service, principle of the administration's duty to have regard
for the interests of officials and principle of proper administra-
tion.

interest

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 6 March 2008
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Supremo (Spain)) — Comisión del Mercado de las
Telecomunicaciones v Administración del Estado

(Case C-82/07) (1)

(Electronic communications — Networks and services — Arti-
cles 3(2) and 10(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework
Directive) — National numbering plans — Specific regulatory
authority)

(2008/C 107/10)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo (Spain)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Comisión del Mercado de las Telecomunicaciones

Operative part of the judgment

Defendant: Administración del Estado

The Court:

Re:

1. annuls

the judgment of

the Court of First

Instance (Second
Chamber) of 14 November 2006 in Case T-494/04 Neirinck v
Commission in so far as the Court dismissed the plea in law alle-
ging that an infringement of the obligation to state reasons vitiated
the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of
27 April 2004 informing Mrs Neirinck that she had failed the
oral examination within the recruitment procedure for the post of
lawyer in the Buildings Policy sector of the Office for Infrastructure
and Logistics in Brussels, as a member of contract staff;

2. dismisses the appeal for the remainder;

3. annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Commu-
nities of 27 April 2004 informing Mrs Neirinck that she had
failed the oral examination within the recruitment procedure for the
post of lawyer in the Buildings Policy sector of the Office for Infra-
structure and Logistics in Brussels, as a member of contract staff;

4. dismisses the action for the remainder;

5. orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay,

in
addition to its own costs, the entire costs of Mrs Neirinck before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities and before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities.

Interpretation of Articles 3(1), (2) and (4) and 10(1) of Directive
2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of
7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for elec-
tronic communications networks and services
(‘Framework
Directive’) (OJ 2000 L 108, p. 33) — Allocation of national
numbering resources and management of national numbering
plans — Regulatory and operational tasks entrusted to a specific
authority

Operative part of the judgment

1. Articles 3(2), 3(4) and 10(1) of Directive 2002/21/EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on
a common regulatory framework for electronic communications
networks and services (Framework Directive), read in conjunction
with Recital (11) in the preamble to that directive, must be inter-
preted as meaning that the assignment of the national numbering
resources and the management of the national numbering plans
must be regarded as regulatory functions. Member States are not
required to allocate those different functions to separate regulatory
authorities.

2. Article 10(1) and Article 3(2), (4) and (6) of Directive 2002/21
must be interpreted as not precluding the functions of assigning
national numbering resources or of managing national numbering
plans from being shared by a number of independent regulatory
authorities, provided that the allocation of the tasks is made public
the
and easily accessible, and notified to the Commission of
European Communities.

(1) OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.

(1) OJ C 82, 14.4.2007.