CELEX: C1999/281/12
Language: en
Date: 1999-10-02 00:00:00
Title: Case C-273/99 P: Appeal brought on 20 July 1999 by Mr B. Connolly against the judgment delivered on 19 May 1999 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-203/95 between Mr Connolly and the Commission of the European Communities

C 281/6               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     2.10.1999
Action brought on 20 July 1999 by the Commission of                     Appeal brought on 20 July 1999 by Mr B. Connolly
the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of                     against the judgment delivered on 19 May 1999 by the
                          Luxembourg                                    First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities in Case T-203/95 between Mr
                                                                        Connolly and the Commission of the European Communi-
                        (Case C-272/99)                                                                ties
                        (1999/C 281/11)                                                         (Case C-273/99 P)
An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was                                              (1999/C 281/12)
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 20 July 1999 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Lena Ström, Legal Adviser, and              An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 May 1999 by
Olivier Couvert-Castéra, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent,         the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of              Communities in Case T-203/95 between Mr B. Connolly and
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                     the Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                        before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                        20 July 1999 by Mr Connolly, represented by Jacques Sambon
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                  and Pierre-Paul van Gehuchten, both of the Brussels Bar, with
the Court should:                                                       an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis
                                                                        Schiltz, 2 rue du Fort Rheinsheim.
(1) declare that, by adopting the Law of 15 March 1983 to
    protect the life and well-being of animals, which does              The appellant claims that the Court should:
    not correctly transpose Council Directive 86/609/EEC of
    24 November 1986 regarding the protection of animals
    used for experimental purposes (1), the Grand Duchy of                  Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
    Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that              European Communities of 19 May 1999.
    directive and, in particular, Articles 5, 7(2), 8(1) and (3)
    and 19(5) thereof;                                                      And, ruling on the merits of the forms of order sought by
                                                                            the applicant
(2) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
                                                                            — annul the decision of 6 September 1995 to commence
                                                                                 disciplinary proceedings against him, the decision of
                                                                                 27 September 1995 to suspend him from his duties,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  and the decision of 4 October 1995 to refer the matter
                                                                                 to the Disciplinary Board;
— Infringement of Article 5 of the directive: the abovemen-
    tioned Luxembourg law falls short in numerous respects
    of the obligations expressly imposed by the directive.                  — order the Commission to pay him compensation of
                                                                                 BFR 750 000 for the material and non-material dam-
— Infringement of Article 7(2) of the directive: the Luxem-                      age suffered by him following the press campaign and
    bourg law does not clearly provide that the use of                           the defamatory allegations to which he was subject;
    an ‘animal with the lowest degree of sensitivity and
    psychological development’ may constitute an alternative                — order that publication of the operative part of the
    to a ‘reasonable alternative solution’ only in cases concern-                judgment to be given take place in the following
    ing animals not referred to in Article 2(a) of the directive.                newspapers at the Commission’s expense: The Times,
                                                                                 The Daily Telegraph, The Financial Times;
— Infringement of Article 19(5) of the directive: the absence
    of any obligation to keep records showing the provenance                — order the Commission to pay the costs.
    and date of arrival of all animals acquired prevents the
    competent authorities to a considerable extent from being
    able to check that the animals used come from breeding
    establishments or supplying establishments or from estab-           Pleas in law and main arguments
    lishments approved in accordance with Article 15 of the
    directive, or that they have been properly bred in the
    user establishment in accordance with Article 20 of the             Infringement of Community law:
    directive.
                                                                        — Insufficient statement of reasons, misinterpretation of the
                                                                            first paragraph of Article 88 of the Staff Regulations of
                                                                            Officials: The Commission infringed the requirement upon
(1) OJ L 358 of 18.12.1986, p. 1.                                           the appointing authority not only to state the serious
                                                                            misconduct alleged against the official concerned but also
                                                                            to justify in what way that serious misconduct made it
                                                                            necessary to suspend the official immediately from his
                                                                            prerogatives.
 ---pagebreak--- 2.10.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 281/7
— Insufficient statement of reasons, misinterpretation of                 Action brought on 23 July 1999 by the Federal Republic
     the authority of measures: The Court of First Instance               of Germany against the Commission of the European
     misinterprets the authority of the suspension decision of                                        Communities
     27 September 1995, which linked the alleged unauthorised
     public expression only to Article 17 of the Staff Regu-
     lations and not to Articles 11 and 12 thereof.                                                 (Case C-276/99)
— Infringement of the rules on the burden of proof and the
     duty of loyalty: The applicant having stated that it was not                                   (1999/C 281/14)
     possible for him to take cognisance of a disciplinary
     sanction, even with the penalised officials enjoying the
     benefit of anonymity, it was for the Commission to                   An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     produce evidence demonstrating the policy followed in                ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
     cases of publication by a serving official without prior             Communities on 23 July 1999 by the Federal Republic of
     authorisation.                                                       Germany, represented by Wolf-Dieter Plessing, Ministerialrat,
                                                                          and Claus-Dieter, Quassowski, Regierungsdirektor, of the
                                                                          Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs, D-53117 Bonn.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          (1) annul Decision K(1999) 1123 final of the Commission of
                                                                               21 April 1999 concerning a proceeding under Article 88
                                                                               of the ECSC Treaty concerning State aid granted by
                                                                               Germany to Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Admin-
istratif de Strasbourg, by judgment of that court of                      (2) order the defendant to pay the costs.
22 July 1999 in the case of Société Adidas v Directeur des
                  Services Fiscaux du Bas-Rhin
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (Case C-275/99)
                          (1999/C 281/13)                                 The applicant challenges the finding in the contested decision
                                                                          that Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the ECSC
                                                                          Treaty in relation to the recovery of State aid (1) Unlike the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    Commission, the applicant takes the view that the bringing of
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal Adminis-                 court proceedings initially in respect of only 20 % of the claims
tratif de Strasbourg (Administrative Court, Strasbourg) of                in question is reasonable in order to economise on costs
22 July 1999, received at the Court Registry on 23 July 1999,             and is unobjectionable even though no notarially certified
for a preliminary ruling in the case of Société Adidas v                  agreement is available in respect of the remaining 80 % which
Directeur des Services Fiscaux on the following question:                 would ensure that following the delivery of a court decision
                                                                          on the partial claim, the Commission’s decision would be
                                                                          implemented without delay as regards the rest of the claim.
                                                                          The applicant further considers, unlike the Commission, that
Whether the authorisation granted to France by the Council                the decision of the Free State of Bavaria not to lodge an appeal
Decision of 28 July 1989, published in the Official Journal of            against the order for a stay of proceedings made by the
the European Communities on 16 August 1989 (1), to intro-                 Landgericht Amberg (Amberg Regional Court) does not
duce measures derogating from the Sixth Directive, excluding              infringe Article 86 of the ECSC Treaty; although the lodging of
value added tax which has been charged on expenditure in                  an appeal against an order staying proceedings was theoreti-
respect of accommodation, food, hospitality and entertainment             cally possible, it would have served no purpose in the
from the right to deduct, is disproportionate to the aim of               specific circumstances of the case and was not, therefore, an
combating tax evasion laid down in Article 27 of the Sixth                appropriate measure within the meaning of Article 86 of the
Directive.                                                                ECSC Treaty.
(1) Council Decision 89/487/EEC of 28 July 1989 authorising the           (1) The aid in question is that which was the subject-matter of Joined
    French Republic to apply a measure derogating from the second             Cases T-129/95, T-2/96 ant T-97/96 (judgment of the Court of
    subparagraph of Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC           First Instance of 21 January 1999) and of Cases C-158/95 (OJ
    on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating            C 208 of 12.8.1995, p. 4), C-399/95 (OJ C 77 of 16.3.1996, p.
    to turnover taxes (OJ L 239 of 16.8.1989, p. 21).                         5) and C-195/96 (OJ C 247 of 24.8.1996, p. 5).