CELEX: C1998/278/46
Language: en
Date: 1998-09-05 00:00:00
Title: Appeal brought on 15 July 1998 by Arnaldo Lucaccioni against the judgment delivered on 14 May 1998 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-165/95 between Arnaldo Lucaccioni and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-257/98 P)

5.9.98                   EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 278/25
Kingdom of Spain, represented by Santiago Ortiz                           Action brought on 15 July 1998 by the Commission of the
Vaamonde, Abogado del Estado, acting as Agent, with an                        European Communities against the French Republic
address for service in Luxembourg at the Spanish                                                   (Case C-256/98)
Embassy, 4Ð6 Boulevard Emmanuel Servais.
                                                                                                    (98/C 278/45)
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
                                                                          An action against the French Republic was brought before
                                                                          the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                          15 July 1998 by the Commission of the European
Ð annul Commission Decision 98/324/EC (1) on the
                                                                          Communities, represented by Paolo Stancanelli, of its
     clearance of the accounts in respect of the expenditure
                                                                          Legal Service, and Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra, a national
     for 1997 of the Guarantee Section of the European
                                                                          civil servant on secondment to its Legal Service, acting as
     Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, as regards
                                                                          Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
     the financial adjustment imposed on Spain, and
                                                                          office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
                                                                          Kirchberg.
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                          The Commission of the European Communities claims
                                                                          that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                          Ð declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws,
                                                                               regulations and administrative measures necessary in
Ð Infringement of essential procedural requirements and                        order to comply with Council Directive 92/43/EEC of
     lack of a statement of reasons:                                           21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats
                                                                               and of wild fauna and flora (1), in that it has omitted
                                                                               to take the measures necessary in order to comply
     The contested Decision cannot incorporate a financial                     with Article 6 of that Directive, the French Republic
     adjustment since it was issued at the stage of clearance                  has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive
     of accounts (Article 5(2)(b) of Council Regulation                        and under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the
     (EEC) No 729/70 (2) and not at the stage of                               EC Treaty,
     verification of compliance (Article 5(2)(c) of
     Regulation (EEC) No 729/70). Only at the latter stage                Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.
     is it appropriate to verify whether the expenditure
     incurred is in conformity with the Community
     provisions. Any financial adjustment made otherwise                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     than in connection with the clearance of accounts
     which is a preliminary to it is void through failure to
     follow the correct clearance procedure laid down in                  The pleas in law and main arguments are analogous to
     Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 (3).                           those in Case C-250/98 (2); the time limit prescribed by
     Moreover, although the Kingdom of Spain has learned                  Article 23 of the Directive for its transposition expired on
     why the Commission doubted the correctness of a                      5 June 1994.
     particular budgetary item, it has been unable to
     ascertain why the Commission rejected the                            (1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
     explanations offered by the Kingdom of Spain.                        (2) See page 22 of this Official Journal.
Ð Infringement of the applicable Community law:
     The calculation made by the Spanish authorities is                   Appeal brought on 15 July 1998 by Arnaldo Lucaccioni
     correct and is in conformity with the applicable                     against the judgment delivered on 14 May 1998 by
     Council Regulation (EC) No 150/95 (4) and                            the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
     Commission Regulations (EC) No 157/95 (5) and (EC)                   the European Communities in Case T-165/95 between
     No 158/95 (6).                                                       Arnaldo Lucaccioni and the Commission of the European
                                                                                                     Communities
(1 ) OJ L 141, 13.5.1998, p. 38.                                                                  (Case C-257/98 P)
(2 ) Official Journal, English special Edition 1970 I, p. 218.
(3 ) OJ L 158, 8.7.1995, p. 6.
                                                                                                    (98/C 278/46)
(4 ) OJ L 22, 31.1.1995, p. 1.
(5 ) OJ L 24, 1.2.1995, p. 1.
(6 ) OJ L 24, 1.2.1995, p. 4.                                             An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 May
                                                                          1998 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First
                                                                          Instance of the European Communities in Case T-165/95
                                                                          between Arnaldo Lucaccioni and the Commission of the
 ---pagebreak--- C 278/26             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     5.9.98
European Communities was brought before the Court                       placed in the institution and, as was argued at the oral
of Justice of the European Communities on 15 July                       hearing, the prejudice caused to the appellant's sexual
1998 by Arnaldo Lucaccioni, represented by Georges                      circumstances and to his enjoyment of life. That
Vandersanden, Laure Levi and O. Eben, of the Brussels                   damage is unconnected with the compensation for
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                   physical defects' which is covered by Article 14 of the
offices of Fiduciaire Myson, 30 rue de Cessange.                        Rules on the insurance of officials against the risk of
                                                                        accident and of occupational disease.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    Ð The Court of First Instance took it upon itself, without
Ð set aside the judgment delivered on 14 May 1998
                                                                        stating any appropriate reasons therefor, to include the
    by the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        material and non-material loss suffered by the
    Communities in Case T-165/95 (1), in which it rejected
                                                                        appellant in the capital sum paid to him under the
    the appellant's claims as to their substance,
                                                                        social security scheme of Community officials.
Ð consequently, allow the claims advanced by the
    appellant in the proceedings at first instance, apart           Ð The Court of First Instance failed to penalise the delay
    from his application for compensation for material                  in dealing with the matter by awarding default
    damage in the sum of BEF 12 500 000 corresponding                   interest.
    to the material loss arising from certain sales of
    immovable property,
                                                                    (1) OJ C 209, 4.7.1998, p. 37.
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð Infringement of Community law.
                                                                    Action brought on 15 July 1998 by the Commission of the
Ð Although the Court of First Instance acknowledged                 European Communities against the Federal Republic of
    that a compensation scheme based on the ordinary                                            Germany
    law relating to liability may coexist with the scheme
                                                                                           (Case C-259/98)
    recognised by the Staff Regulations of officials of the
    European Communities, providing for the award of                                        (98/C 278/47)
    lump-sum compensation by the social security system,
    it omitted to consider the factors giving rise to liability
    under the ordinary law, as incurred by the
                                                                    An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
    Commission, namely: fault, damage and the
                                                                    brought before the Court of Justice of the European
    relationship of cause and effect existing as between the
                                                                    Communities on 15 July 1998 by the Commission of the
    fault and the damage.
                                                                    European Communities, represented by Michael Niejahr
                                                                    and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, with an address
Ð The Court of First Instance failed to carry out a                 for service at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
    correct assessment of the material and non-material             Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
    damage suffered by the appellant.
    Contrary to the findings of the Court of First Instance,        The applicant claims that the Court should:
    the lump-sum capital amount which is guaranteed by
    the Staff Regulations and paid under the insurance
    scheme entered into by the Commission Ð to which                Ð declare that, by imposing, for Community nationals
    officials pay contributions Ð cannot include                        who hold a diploma not obtained in Germany
    compensation for material damage equivalent to the                  qualifying them to carry on the profession of dental
    difference between an invalidity pension and the salary             practitioner in accordance with Council Directives 78/
    of an official.                                                     686/EEC (1) and 78/687/EEC (2), an obligatory
                                                                        introductory course as a specific requirement in order
    The non-material damage pleaded by the appellant                    for them to become eligible for appointment as a
    concerns all of the following: the physical and                     dental practitioner of a social security scheme
    professional damage suffered by him, the daily distress             practising independently in Germany, the Federal
    arising from his having had to work for 20 years in an              Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
    environment which was dangerous to his health and                   under those Directives, in particular under Article 20
    resulting from his illness and future developments                  of Directive 78/686/EEC and Article 5 of Directive 78/
    relating thereto (recurrence and premature death), his              687/EEC,
    physical sufferings due to the illness and the
    consequences of surgical operations, the absence of
    any acknowledgement by the Commission of its                    Ð order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the
    liability and its failure to have regard to the trust               costs.