Case C-482/08: Action brought on 10 November 2008 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union
Date: 2008-11-10
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Council of the European Union, EU police cooperation, EU visa policy, Schengen Information System, United Kingdom, action for failure to fulfil an obligation

7.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/15

Action brought on 10 November 2008 — United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the
European Union

(Case C-482/08)

(2009/C 32/24)

Language of the case: English

The annulment of the VIS Police Access Decision is accordingly
sought on the grounds
the United
Kingdom from its adoption entails the infringement of an essen-
the
tial procedural requirement and/or
Treaty, within the meaning of Article 35(6) EU.

the infringement of

the exclusion of

that

(1) OJ L 218, p. 129.

Parties

Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland (represented by: V. Jackson, Agent, T. Ward, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Appeal brought on 11 November 2008 by Claudia Gualtieri
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Chamber) of 10 September 2008 in Case T-284/06 Gualtieri
v Commission

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Decision 2008/633/JHA of 23 June 2008
concerning access for consultation of the Visa Information
System (VIS) by designated authorities of Member States and
by Europol for the purposes of the prevention, detection
and investigation of terrorist offences and of other serious
criminal offences (1);

— determine, following the annulment of the VIS Police Access
Decision, that its provisions should remain effective, except
in so far as they have the effect of excluding the United
Kingdom from participating in the application of the VIS
Police Access Decision;

— order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs of

the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The United Kingdom was denied the right to take part in the
adoption of the VIS Police Access Decision on the grounds that
the Council considered that the measure constitutes a develop-
ment of provisions of the Schengen acquis in which the United
Kingdom does not take part — namely the common visa policy.
As a consequence,
the United
Kingdom is not bound by the Decision or subject to its applica-
tion.

the Council considers that

The United Kingdom contends that the Council was wrong to
conclude that the Decision constitutes a development of provi-
sions of the Schengen acquis in which the United Kingdom does
not take part. The VIS Police Access Decision is not a develop-
ment of the common visa policy, but rather, a police coopera-
tion measure. Neither the aim nor the content of the VIS Police
Access Decision relate to the common visa policy. Rather it is
entirely concerned with the sharing of information entered by
visa authorities with designated law enforcement authorities and
Europol for the purpose of prevention, detection and investiga-
tion of terrorist offences and other serious offences. This is
reflected in the Council's choice of
legal basis, namely Arti-
cles 30(1)(b) and 34(2)(c) TEU.

(Case C-485/08 P)

(2009/C 32/25)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Claudia Gualtieri
M. Gualtieri, avvocati)

(represented by: P. Gualtieri and

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Form of order sought

— Dismiss all other claims, defences and pleas in law;

— make the appropriate findings and orders;

— uphold the pleas in law concerning the various questions
dealt with and grant each of the forms of order relating to
them, which are repeated in full, in any event, herein;

— state the principles of

law that the relationship between
seconded national experts (‘SNE’) and the Commission of
the European Communities is one of employment compar-
able to that of temporary staff and that the corresponding
allowances paid to SNE are in the nature of remuneration;

— declare that, under Community law, there should be equal
pay for equal work and that, in any event, the payment to
married persons of any remuneration different from that
paid to single or co-habiting persons gives rise to discrimi-
nation against members of a family as defined by law;