CELEX: C1996/210/10
Language: en
Date: 1996-07-20 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 14 May 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic (Case C-165/96)

20 . 7 . 96           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 210/5
Appeal by Konstantinos Dimitriadis against the judgment               Moreover, the Court of First Instance, in examining in detail
delivered on 28 February 1996 by the Court of First Instance          the reasoning of the decision of the Court of Auditors of
of the European Communities in Case T-294/94 K.                       1 July 1994, which constituted the subject-matter of the
Dimitriadis v. Court of Auditors of the European                      action, infringed the appellant's rights of defence because it
                        Communities ( 1 )                             did not order evidence to the adduced and did not give him
                      ( Case C-140/96 P)                              the opportunity of proving the truth of his claims .
                         ( 96/C 210/09 )                              Lastly, the appellant maintains that the grounds given for
                                                                      the decision of the Court of First Instance as to costs are
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 28 February               inadequate .
1996 by the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-294/94 between K. Dimitriadis and               (') OJ No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .
the Court of Auditors of the European Communities was
lodged on 21 April 1996 by Konstantinos Dimitriadis,
formerly an official of the Court of Auditors of
the European Communities, residing in Luxembourg,
represented by Marcos Papazisis of the Thessaloniki Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the appellant's          Action brought on 14 May 1996 by the Commission of the
address, 4A boulevard G. -D. Charlotte , L-1330 .                      European Communities against the Portuguese Republic
                                                                                              ( Case C-165 /96
The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should :                                         ( 96/C 210/ 10
— order the Registrar of the Court of First Instance to join          An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
    to the pleadings in this appeal the minutes of the oral           before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
    procedure of 8 February 1996 , with the pleadings of the          14 May 1996 by the Commission of the European
    parties ' lawyers, and the transcript of the testimony of         Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,
    the witness Mr F. before the Fifth Chamber of the Court           acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg
    of First Instance in Case T-326/94 Dimitriadis v . Court          at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
    of Auditors on 11 January 1 996 ,                                 Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
— set aside in whole or in part the judgment under appeal             The applicant claims that the Court should :
    of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber ) of
    28 February 1 996 in Case T-294/94 Dimitriadis v . Court        - — declare that, by failing to adopt in their entirety the laws,
    of Auditors ,                                                         regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                          comply with Commission Directive 91 /410/EEC of
— admit the appeal and examine it as to the merits,                       22 July 1991 adapting to technical progress for the
                                                                           14th time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the
— order the respondent to pay the costs of the appeal and                 approximation of laws, regulations and administrative
     of the action brought before the Court of First                      provisions relating to the classification, packaging and
     Instance .                                                           labelling of dangerous substances ('), the Portuguese
                                                                          Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                          third paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty and
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Article 2 of Directive 91 /410/EEC,
The appellant puts forward eight grounds of appeal relating           — declare, in the alternative, that by failing to inform the
to procedural defects and infringements of Community                       Commission immediately thereof, the Portuguese
law.                                                                      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                           same provisions ,
In particular he maintains that the Court of First Instance
did not take account of the pleas put forward in the course           — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
of the oral procedure , because they could not be put forward
earlier as part of the written procedure, that the judgment is        Pleas in law and main arguments
not consistent with the relevant case-law and that the Court ,
of First Instance wrongly held that there was no need for it to       The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
hear evidence to establish the truth of certain of the                paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty requires Member
appellant's claims .                                                  States to adopt the measures necessary to transpose
                                                                      directives addressed to them into their domestic law before
He also maintains that the Court of First Instance wrongly            the expiry of the period prescribed for doing so . That period
held that it was justified in not examining certain witnesses         expired on 1 August 1992 without Portugal having adopted
whom the appellant wished to call but that it was justified,          the necessary provisions .
on behalf of the appointing authority, in examining former
complaints to the detriment of the appellant, whereas it              (') OJ No L 228 , 17 . 8 . 1991 , p . 67.
should have confined itself to establishing the facts of the
case and where responsibility for the present dispute lay.