CELEX: C1999/071/32
Language: en
Date: 1999-03-13 00:00:00
Title: Appeal brought on 15 January 1999 by Carmen Gómez de Enterría y Sanchez against the judgment delivered on 17 November 1998 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-131/97 between Carmen Gómez de Enterría y Sanchez and the European Parliament (Case C-8/99 P)

C 71/18               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13.3.1999
    competent authority which forwarded the application                this case to a form of arbitrary discrimination between
    to the Commission with a favourable opinion is                     officials engaged when the decision of 7 February 1996
    obliged to give the consent in writing' allowing the              concerning the criteria for initial grading' was in force
    product to be placed on the market, or does that                   and officials, such as the appellant, engaged at a time
    authority retain a discretion not to give such consent?            when the Commission automatically refused to apply
                                                                       Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations.
(2) Must the decision of the Commission of the European
    Communities of 23 January 1997 under which the                    Inconsistency
    French authorities are to authorise the placing on the
    market of the product . . . notified by Ciba-Geigy
    Limited' be interpreted as requiring the French
                                                                       On the one hand the Court of First Instance held in
    Government to give its consent in writing'?
                                                                       Alexopoulou I (1) that the Commission's decision of
                                                                       1 September 1983 was contrary to the Staff Regulations,
(1) On the deliberate release into the environment of genetically      while on the other it allowed the Commission to rectify
    modified organisms, OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p. 15.                     the irregularity only in part, that is with effect from
                                                                       5 October 1995.
                                                                       Such reasoning appears inconsistent also in the light of the
                                                                       previous case-law of the Court of Justice concerning the
                                                                       grading of staff, which the Commission accepts as being
Appeal brought on 14 January 1999 by Franco Campoli                    of general application.
against the order delivered on 12 October 1998 by the
First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-235/97 between Franco                   Inadequate statement of reasons
Campoli and the Commission of the European
                          Communities
                        (Case C-7/99 P)                                The Court of First Instance fails to give a proper
                        (1999/C 71/31)                                 statement of reasons for its finding that rejection of the
                                                                       official's request for a review of his initial classification is
                                                                       not contrary to 5(3) of the Staff Regulations' inasmuch as
                                                                       it does not explain how it arrives at such a conclusion.
An appeal against the order delivered on 12 October 1998
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-235/97 between Franco                   (1) Case T-17/95 Alexopoulou v. Commission [1995] ECR-SC
Campoli and the Commission of the European                                 II-683.
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 14 January 1999 by Franco
Campoli, represented by Sergio Diana, of the Cagliari Bar.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       Appeal brought on 15 January 1999 by Carmen Gómez
                                                                       de Enterría y Sanchez against the judgment delivered on
Ð set aside the order delivered by the Court of First                  17 November 1998 by the First Chamber of the Court of
    Instance on 12 October 1998 in Case T-235/97                       First Instance of the European Communities in Case
    Campoli v Commission;                                              T-131/97 between Carmen Gómez de Enterría y Sanchez
                                                                                       and the European Parliament
Ð uphold the claims submitted at first instance;                                              (Case C-8/99 P)
                                                                                               (1999/C 71/32)
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 17 November
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    1998 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance
                                                                       of the European Communities in Case T-131/97 between
                                                                       Carmen Gómez de Enterría Sanchez and the European
Breach of the principle of equal treatment                             Parliament was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities on 15 January 1999 by Carmen
                                                                       Gómez de Enterría y Sanchez, represented by Eric
To find the application inadmissible inasmuch as it seeks              Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
to challenge afresh, without there being any new facts, the            Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du
decision taken by the Commission in 1985, amounts in                   Fort Rheinsheim.
 ---pagebreak--- 13.3.1999              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 71/19
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                        decision (see above), inasmuch as that letter
                                                                                   may be regarded, by reason of its content and
                                                                                   terms, as a decision capable of adversely
                                                                                   affecting the appellant;
1. Declare the appeal admissible and well founded;
                                                                               Ð an order that the Parliament is to pay the
                                                                                   entirety of the costs incurred both at first
                                                                                   instance and in the present appeal proceedings.
2. As a consequence:
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    (a) set aside the judgment under appeal;
                                                                     Ð Contravention of Article 176 of the EC Treaty and the
                                                                          general legal principle of res judicata: the judgment
    (b) adjudicate, upholding        the   appellant's   initial
                                                                          under appeal disregards the fact that the legal
        application for:
                                                                          consequence of annulment is that the pre-existing
                                                                          position must be restored. Thus by virtue of the
        Ð annulment of the decision taken by the Bureau                   annulling judgment, the appellant's retirement from
            of the European Parliament at its meeting of                  her post is deemed never to have taken place.
            15 and 16 July 1996 (Ref.: PE 251.357/BUR)                    Moreover, the grounds stated in the judgment under
            in its capacity as appointing authority,                      appeal are legally unsound since they draw inferences
            whereby it:                                                   from a subsequent situation, that is to say, from the
                                                                          initiation of a new procedure after the annulling
            Ð confirmed its decision of 30 November                       judgment (1), which must be distinguished from the
                 1994;                                                    effects flowing from the annulment itself. The decision
                                                                          at issue, retiring the appellant from her post,
            Ð in accordance with its decision of                          constitutes no more than confirmation of a decision
                 2 February 1995, rejected the appellant's                which was annulled by judgment of the Court of First
                 candidature      for      the      post      of          Instance of the European Communities;
                 Director-General in DG I, which was filled
                 by the candidate selected as most suitable,
                 given the increased role played by that             Ð Infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty,
                 Directorate General;                                     Article 25, second paragraph, and Article 50 of the
                                                                          Staff Regulations, and the general legal principle that a
            Ð rejected the appellant's application for the                decision must be based on relevant grounds: the
                 post of Special Adviser (Grade A 1) at the               judgment under appeal merely considered whether the
                 Epicentre in Brussels, having regard to the              appellant was formally in a position to ascertain the
                 highly specialised career profile required               reasons for her retirement;
                 for such duties and in view also of the fact
                 that the post was at that time blocked by a
                 previous decision of the political and              Ð Breach of the rights of the defence;
                 budgetary authority;
            Ð consequently, gave effect to the measure               Ð Infringement of Article 50 of the Staff Regulations: by
                 retiring the appellant from her post;                    addressing only the circular argument that the
                                                                          restructuring of the Secretariat General necessitated
        Ð as a consequence of the forthcoming decision,                   the appellant's retirement Ð without, however,
            a declaration that, in accordance with                        determining precisely in what respect the appellant
            Article 176 of the Treaty of Rome, the                        could neither accommodate nor have accommodated
            appointing authority must restore all the                     the needs created by the restructuring measures, on the
            appellant's rights, the contested decisions being             assumption that such measures were in fact
            deemed retroactively never to have existed,                   implemented (which they were not) Ð the judgment
            ensuring in particular that the appellant is                  under appeal is in breach of the rule referred to in the
            reinstated, at her proper grade, in the post                  plea;
            from which she was retired and paid any
            salary arrears due between the date of her
            retirement until her reinstatement, together             Ð Failure to comply with the requirement concerning a
            with default interest at the rate of 8 % per                  reasonable period of time and infringement of
            annum;                                                        Article 25, second paragraph, of the Staff Regulations.
                                                                     (1) The judgment of 14.5.1996 in Case T-82/95, OJ C 180,
        Ð so far as is necessary, annulment of the letter                22.6.1996, p. 28.
            of 9 October 1996 from Klaus Hänsch,
            President of the European Parliament,
            informing the appellant of the Bureau's