CELEX: C2001/212/31
Language: en
Date: 2001-07-28 00:00:00
Title: Case C-219/01 P: Appeal brought on 28 May 2001 against the decision handed down on 28 March 2001 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) in Case T-130/00 between Javier Reyna González del Valle and the Commission of the European Communities

C 212/18               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      28.7.2001
Appeal brought on 28 May 2001 against the decision                            to Community law is a decision of a supreme court of a
handed down on 28 March 2001 by the Court of First                            Member State, such as, as in this case, the Verwaltungsger-
Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber)                          ichtshof?
in Case T-130/00 between Javier Reyna González del
Valle and the Commission of the European Communities                    2.    If the answer to Question 1 is yes:
                        (Case C-219/01 P)                                     Is the case-law of the Court of Justice according to which
                                                                              it is for the legal system of each Member State to
                                                                              determine which court or tribunal has jurisdiction to
                         (2001/C 212/31)
                                                                              hear disputes involving individual rights derived from
                                                                              Community law (see inter alia Case C-54/96 Dorsch
An appeal against the decision handed down on 28 March                        [1997] ECR I-4961) also applicable when the conduct of
2001 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-                  an institution purportedly contrary to Community law is
ties (First Chamber) in Case T-130/00 between Javier Reyna                    a judgment of a supreme court of a Member State, such
González del Valle and the Commission of the European                        as, as in this case, the Verwaltungsgerichtshof?
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 28 May 2001 by Javier Reyna                     3.    If the answer to Question 2 is yes:
González del Valle, represented by J.M. Valoria de Arana,
abogado.                                                                      Does the legal interpretation given in the above-men-
                                                                              tioned judgment of the Verwaltungsgerichtshof, accord-
The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:                        ing to which the special length of service increment is a
                                                                              form of loyalty bonus, breach a rule of directly applicable
—     set aside the contested order in its entirety and                       Community law, in particular the prohibition on indirect
—     uphold all the claims which he brought before the Court                 discrimination in Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now
      of First Instance.                                                      Article 39 EC) and the relevant settled case-law of the
                                                                              Court of Justice?
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         4.    If the answer to Question 3 is yes:
Although Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations of                       Is this rule of directly applicable Community law such as
Officials of the European Communities do not make any                         to create a subjective right for the plaintiff in the main
distinction between irregularities which render a measure void                proceedings?
and those which render it merely voidable, that does not mean
that an administrative measure which is void is always subject          5.    If the answer to Question 4 is yes?:
to the time-limits for bringing proceedings prescribed by those
articles.                                                                     Does the Court of Justice of the European Community
                                                                              have sufficient information in the content of the order
                                                                              for reference to enable it to rule itself as to whether the
                                                                              Verwaltungsgerichtshof in the circumstances of the main
                                                                              proceedings described has clearly and significantly
                                                                              exceeded the discretion available to it, or is it for the
                                                                              referring Austrian court to answer that question.
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht
für Zivilrechtsachen (Regional Civil Court) — by order of
that court of 7 May 2001 in the case of Dr. Gerhard
                  Köbler v Republic of Austria
                         (Case C-224/01)
                         (2001/C 212/32)
                                                                        Action brought on 6 June 2001 by the Commission of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  European Communities against the Kingdom of Denmark
European Communities by an order of the Landesgericht für
Zivilrechtsachen of 7 May 2001, which was received at the                                         (Case C-226/01)
Court Registry on 6 June 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
case of Dr. Gerhard Köbler v Republic of Austria on the
following questions:                                                                              (2001/C 212/33)
1.    Is the case-law of the Court of Justice to the effect that it
      is immaterial as regards State liability for a breach of          An action against the Kingdom of Denmark was brought
      Community law which institution of a Member State is              before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
      responsible for that breach (see Joined Cases C-46/93 and         6 June 2001 by the Commission of the European Communi-
      C-48/93 Factortame [1996 ECR I-1029) also applicable              ties, represented by Hans Støvlbæk, acting as Agent, with an
      when the conduct of an institution purportedly contrary           address for service in Luxembourg.