CELEX: C1995/208/18
Language: en
Date: 1995-08-12 00:00:00
Title: Appeal by Anne Hogan against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 29 March 1995 in Case T-497/93, Anne Hogan against the Court of Justice of the European Communities (Case C-173/95 P)

12 . 8 . 95            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       No C 208/9
Appeal by Anne Hogan against the judgment of the Court of                   formal ad hoc powers may do so, in compliance with the
First Instance of the European Communities of 29 March                     relevant rules, for example the Luxembourg Law of
1995 in Case T-497/93 , Anne Hogan against the Court of                     1 0 August 1 99 1 on the legal profession and admission to
             Justice of the European Communities                           the register,
                       ( Case C-173/95 P)
                          ( 95/C 208/ 18 )                            — hold that Article 24 of the Staff Regulations obliges the
                                                                            Communities to assist officials and not to act to their
                                                                           detriment, that the Court's services have infringed that
                                                                           obligation, and that the decisions to attach and pay over
An appeal was brought before the Court of Justice of the                   the sum of F1 43 811 were therefore unlawful ,
European Communities on 3 June 1995 by Anne Hogan,
represented by Giancarlo Lattanzi, of the Massa-Carrara
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at 33 Rue              — set aside the judgment and all measures preparatory or
Godchaux, against the judgment of the Court of First                       subsequent thereto, or connected therewith,
Instance of the European Communities of 29 March 1995 in
Case T-497/93 .
                                                                      — refer the case back to the Court of First Instance in
                                                                           plenary session, or in the alternative to a Chamber of at
                                                                           least five members , and in any event excluding the judge
The appellant claims that the Court should :                               to whom objection is made,
— declare the appeal admissible and well founded ,                    — in the alternative, hold that measures of foreign courts,
                                                                           including orders, are not directly enforceable under
                                                                           Community law without a prior judgment by the Court
— allow the claims in this case, especially those contained                of Justice giving them legal effect and prior verification
    in the original action brought on 6 August 1993 , and in               that the principles of international and Community
    measures preparatory or subsequent thereto, or                         public order have been complied with,
    connected therewith, and in particular those expressly
    set out in the summary of essential facts at the beginning        — make such further order as may be appropriate,
    of this application,
                                                                     — order the defendant to pay the costs.
— hold that the action is brought against the appointing
    authority of the Court, and not against the Court of
    Justice of the European Communities in its capacity as            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    the body judging this appeal,
                                                                        I. Lack of competence
— hold that the plea of nullity is in itself sufficient to
    subsume all the other pleas,                                       II . Procedural irregularities :
— expressly declare that the orders made against the                         — change of the defendant's name (this of itself being
    appellant under Luxembourg law have no legal                                 sufficient to render the judgment void ),
    existence in Community law, because national courts
    have no power to make the Court and other Community                      — failure to observe the rules concerning:
    institutions party to proceedings concerning provisional
    orders ,
                                                                                 (A ) priority of cases ( Rules of Procedure of the
                                                                                       Court of First Instance, Article 55 );
— declare that the Community institutions and/or their                                 modification of measures of organization of
    personnel divisions are not employers subject to                                   procedure ( Articles 49 and 69 (4 ));
    Luxembourg law,                                                                    designation ad hoc of an Advocate-General
                                                                                       ( Article 18 in particular ); joinder of actions
                                                                                       ( Article 50 ); the possibility of transferring the
— find that the appellant is an employee of the European                               case to a plenary session at any time
    Parliament and not of the Court of Justice, and that the                           (Articles 11 , 14 and 51 , last sentence );
    Court of First Instance was wrong to state that the                                transmission of procedural documents
    appellant's employer was the Court, having stated in                               ( Article 25 ( 1 )); the taking of appropriate
    paragraph 1 of its judgment that she was ' an official in                          measures of enquiry ( Article 65 ( c ));
    Grade C 1 in the European Parliament',
                                                                                 ( B ) the irregular transfer of the case from the
— declare that the Head of Personnel does not have the                                 Third Chamber ( composed of three members )
    power to represent the Court of Justice before national                            to the Fourth Chamber ( also composed of
    courts, and that only servants of the institution with                             three members ), including the Luxembourg
 ---pagebreak--- No C 208/10            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       12 . 8 . 95
                judge, R. Schintgen, to whom objection had            interpreted as meaning that only actual entry into the
                already been repeatedly made,                         territorial waters of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia by a
                                                                      ship or other means of transport carrying goods intended for
          ( C ) the objection to Judge R. Schintgen ( Protocol        commercial traffic in the said territorial waters constitutes a
                on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the         breach of the prohibition laid down therein, or do those
                EEC, Article 4, second paragraph, Article 16,         legislative provisions also cover conduct occurring in
                first paragraph, and Article 44 ); lack of            international waters which, because of the specific way in
                impartiality of that judge in any event,              which it is conceived and put into effect, gives good reason
                irrespective of whether the grounds for               to believe that the ship or other means of transport is on
                objection are well founded .                          course for the said territorial waters for the purposes of
                                                                      commercial traffic ?
III. Infringement of Community law and of Article 6 of the
      European Convention on Human Rights and on the                  Question 2 : Do Article 1 ( d ) of the Decision and Article 1 ( d )
      protection of computer data (sic), in that the contested        of the Regulation mentioned above, in so far as they prohibit
      judgment:                                                       any activity the object or effect of which is, directly or
                                                                      indirectly, to promote the transactions mentioned in
      — infringes the rights of the defence,                          Article 1 (c ), include within their scope navigation in
                                                                      international waters by a ship or other means of transport
      — takes no account of the fact that a national court            carrying goods presumably intended for commercial traffic
          has no power to make the Court of Justice party to          in the territorial waters of the Federal Republic of
          proceedings,                                                Yugoslavia ?
      — wrongly declares a number of conditional pre-trial            Question 3 : Is a domestic provision which expressly
          orders, existing only in foreign law, to be effective       prescribes, in the event of breach of any of the prohibitions
          in Community law,                                           contained in the abovementioned Article 1 being
                                                                      ascertained , confiscation — either compulsory or
                                                                      discretionary — of the cargo carried by any of the means of
      — wrongly upheld the flagrant breaches of Article 24            transport indicated in the second paragraph of Article 10 of
          of the Staff Regulations of Officials by the
          Personnel Division of the Court, which failed to            the abovementioned Community Decision and Regulation
          provide its own officials, in this case the appellant,
                                                                      compatible with Community legislation, in particular the
                                                                      first and second paragraphs of the said Article 10 ?
          with the assistance it was expressly obliged to
          provide by the Staff Regulations .
                                                                      I 1 ) OJ No L 102 , 28 . 4 . 1993 , p . 17 .
                                                                      ( 2 ) OJ No L 102 , 28 . 4 . 1993 , p . 14 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by Consiglio di Stato by
order of that court of 11 April 1995 in the case of ( 1 ) Ebony
Maritime SA and (2 ) Loten Navigation Company Ltd v.                  Action brought on 9 June 1995 by the Kingdom of Spain
       Prefetto della Provincia de Brindisi and Others                          against the Council of the European Union
                                                                                                ( Case C-l 79/95 )
                        ( Case C-177/95 )
                                                                                                   95/C 208/20 )
                          ( 95/C 208/19 )
                                                                      An action against the Council of the European Union was
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      brought before the Court of Justice of the European
European Communities by an order of the Consiglio di                  Communities on 9 June 1995 by the Kingdom of Spain,
Stato ( Council of State ) of 11 April 1995 , which was
                                                                      represented by Alberto Navarro Gonzalez, Director General
received at the Court Registry on 6 June 1995 , for a                 for Community Legal and Institutional Coordination, and
preliminary ruling in the case of ( 1 ) Ebony Maritime SA and         by Rosario Silva de Lapuerta, Abogado del Estado, acting as
( 2 ) Loten Navigation Company Ltd v. Prefetto della
Provincia de Brindisi and Others on the following
                                                                      Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                      Spanish Embassy, 4—6 Boulevard Emmanuel Servais .
questions :
Question 1 : Must Article 1 (c ) of Decision 92/235/ECSC ( l )        The applicant claims that the Court should :
of the representatives of the governments of the Member
States meeting within the Council of 26 April 1993                    — annul the last sentence in Article 1 ( 1 ) ( i ) of Annex IV to
concerning trade between the European Coal and Steel                        Council Regulation ( EC ) No 685/95 (*) of 27 March
Community and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ( Serbia                   1995 on the management of the fishing effort relating to
and Montenegro ) and Article 1 (c ) of Council Regulation                   certain Community fishing areas and resources,
( EEC ) No 990/93 ( 2 ) of the same date concerning trade
between the European Economic Community and the                       — annul the fifth element concerning anchovy in Annex I to
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ( Serbia and Montenegro ) be                 Council Regulation ( EC ) No 746/95 ( 2 ) of 31 March