CELEX: C1999/281/11
Language: en
Date: 1999-10-02 00:00:00
Title: Case C-272/99: Action brought on 20 July 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

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.