Case C-496/08 P: Appeal brought on 18 November 2008 by Pilar Angé Serrano, Jean-Marie Bras, Adolfo Orcajo Teresa, Dominiek Decoutere, Armin Hau and Francisco Javier Solana Ramos against the judgment delivered on 18 September 2008 in Case T-47/05 Angé Serrano and Others v Parliament
Date: 2008-11-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European Parliament, European official, appeal, competition (EU), damages, regulations for civil servants

21.2.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/27

4. Is there indirect discrimination on grounds of sex within the
meaning of Article 14(1)(c) of the Equal Treatment Directive
of 5 July 2006 (Directive 2006/54/EC (3), OJ 2006 L 204,
p. 23), if, in the case of employees who take the full two
years' parental leave permissible by law, the entitlement to
annual leave from the year preceding the birth expires before
the end of
the
workers affected are women (97 %)?

leave, and the majority of

the parental

(1) OJ L 14, p. 9.
(2) OJ L 175, p. 43.
(3) OJ L 204, p. 23.

Action brought on 12 November 2008 — Commission of
the European Communities v Italian Republic

(Case C-491/08)

(2009/C 44/45)

Language of the case: Italian

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission is aware that a tourist complex, which includes
a golf course, is under construction within the Is Arenas SCI. In
the Commission's view, the planned tourist infrastructure in the
Is Arenas SCI
is predominantly located in the areas which
ensure the ecological connection between the two largest areas
of pine forest. It is therefore likely to have a significant negative
impact on such areas, and especially on their function as an
‘ecological link’.

Moreover, among the undesirable features of the project, the
Commission draws attention to the reduction and modification
of original habitats, inter alia through the introduction of alien
species such as grasses from the golf course; the loss of habitats;
the effects of trampling and compaction of ground; the loss of
spaces; the impact of the arrival of bathers on the habitats of
the first coastal zone, which is particularly important as it
contains the dune systems; and tree felling.

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation
of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206,
p. 7).

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: D. Recchia, agent)

Appeal brought on 18 November 2008 by Pilar Angé
Serrano, Jean-Marie Bras, Adolfo Orcajo Teresa, Dominiek
Decoutere, Armin Hau and Francisco Javier Solana Ramos
against the judgment delivered on 18 September 2008 in
Case T-47/05 Angé Serrano and Others v Parliament

Defendant: Italian Republic

Forms of order sought

— Declare that, in respect of the planned tourist complex ‘Is
Arenas’ in the Municipality of Narbolia, which concerns the
habitats and species present in site ITB032228 ‘Is Arenas’:

Parties

(Case C-496/08 P)

(2009/C 44/46)

Language of the case: French

— the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil

its obligations
under Directive 92/43/EEC by failing to adopt, before
19 July 2006, preservation measures which, having
regard to the conservation aim of
that directive, are
the purposes of preserving the relevant
suitable for
ecological
level by the
(SCI)
proposed
ITB032228 ‘Is Arenas’, and in particular by failing to
prevent an activity likely seriously to endanger the ecolo-
gical characteristics of the site (1); and

interest represented at national
of Community
site

importance

Appellants: Pilar Angé Serrano, Jean-Marie Bras, Adolfo Orcajo
Teresa, Dominiek Decoutere, Armin Hau and Francisco Javier
Solana Ramos (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Parliament, Council of
the European Union

Form of order sought

— the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil

its obligations
under Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC by failing to
adopt, after 19 July 2006, appropriate measures to
prevent
the deterioration of natural habitats and the
habitats of species, as well as disturbance of the species
for which that SCI was designated; and

— Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

— declare the appeal admissible, and consequently:

— as regards Mrs Angé Serrano, Mr Bras and Mr Orcajo
Teresa, annul the judgment under appeal, first, in so far
as it holds that there is no need to adjudicate with
respect to them as regards their first plea and, secondly,
in so far as it dismisses their claim for damages;

C 44/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.2.2009

— as regards Mr Decoutere, Mr Hau and Mr Solana Ramos,
annul points 2 and 4 of the judgment under appeal and
the grounds relating thereto;

— give judgment in the dispute and, upholding the applicants'

initial action in Case T-47/05:

— annul the decisions concerning the applicants' classifica-
tion in grade following the entry into force of the new
Staff Regulations;

— order the European Parliament to pay damages, assessed

ex aequo et bono at EUR 60 000 for each applicant

— in any event, order the defendant to pay the costs at both

instances.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the judgment under appeal, the Court of First Instance ruled
on the actions by the six applicants, all officials of the European
Parliament who were successful in internal competitions carried
out under the old Staff Regulations but whose classification was
amended following the entry into force of the new Staff Regula-
tions.

The first three applicants make three pleas in support of their
appeal.

In their first plea, they argue that, by holding that there was no
need to adjudicate, the Court of First Instance made an error of
law and failed in its duty to state reasons. The applicants argue
that they retain an interest in bringing an annulment action
against the disputed classification decisions, despite their having
been replaced by the
individual decisions of
subsequent
20 March 2006, inasmuch as the Court of First Instance itself
took the view that those new decisions did not fully remedy the
damage suffered by the applicants since they did not re-establish
classification in a higher grade. Moreover, the contested deci-
sions were based on Articles 2 and 8 of Annex XIII to the new
Staff Regulations, the legality of which they argue is open to
challenge.

In their second plea, those applicants claim that the Court of
First Instance failed in its duty to state reasons by rejecting their
claim for damages, whereas classification in grade in accordance
with the new Staff Regulations placed them at the same level as
their colleagues who had not passed the competition for change
of category, and thus caused them severe damage.

The three latter applicants make a single plea in support of their
appeal, arguing that Articles 2 and 8 of Annex XIII of the new
Staff Regulations are unlawful.

In that respect, the applicants claim, first, that the Court of First
legal
Instance infringed acquired rights and the principles of
certainty and the protection of
in
holding that classification in a higher grade following their
success in competitions held under the old Staff Regulations did
not constitute an acquired right and could not, therefore, give
rise to any legitimate expectation.

legitimate expectations

In support of the same plea, the applicants argue, secondly, that
the Court of First Instance infringed the principle of equal treat-
ment inasmuch as, following reclassification in grade carried out
under the new Staff Regulations, they were treated identically
with their colleagues who had not passed the same competi-
tions. Moreover, the Court of First Instance applied different
treatment to identical situations by concluding that successful
candidates of the same competition did not constitute a single
category, the rules for classification in grade differing, it its esti-
mation, according to the date on which the classification took
place. Application of different provisions to successful candi-
dates of the same competition, namely Articles 2(1) and 5(4) of
Annex XIII to the new Staff Regulations, was thus contrary to
the principle of equal treatment.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 24 November 2008 —
Vera Mattner v Finanzamt Velbert

(Case C-510/08)

(2009/C 44/47)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Düsseldorf

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vera Mattner

Defendant: Finanzamt Velbert

Question referred

Are Articles 39 EC and 43 EC and Article 56 EC in conjunction
with Article 58 EC to be interpreted as precluding national legis-
lation of a Member State on the charging of gift tax which,
where land situated within the country is acquired by a non-resi-
dent person, provides for a tax-free amount of only EUR 1 100
for the non-resident acquirer, while on the gifting of the same
land a tax-free amount of EUR 205 000 would apply, if at the
time the gift was effected the donor or acquirer were domiciled
in the Member State concerned?