CELEX: C1999/048/29
Language: en
Date: 1999-02-20 00:00:00
Title: Appeal brought on 16 December 1998 by Isabel Martínez del Peral Cagigal against the order of the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 14 October 1998 in Case T-224/97: Isabel Martínez del Peral Cagigal v. Commission of the European Communities (Case C-459/98 P)

C 48/18               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 20.2.1999
Case T-2/95 between Industrie des Poudres SpheÂriques and           Appeal brought on 16 December 1998 by Isabel Martínez
the Council of the European Union, supported by the                 del Peral Cagigal against the order of the First Chamber of
Commission of the European Communities, PeÂchiney                   the Court of First Instance of 14 October 1998 in Case
EÂlectromeÂtallurgie and the Chambre Syndicale de                   T-224/97: Isabel Martínez del Peral Cagigal v.
l'EÂlectromeÂtallurgie et de l'EÂlectrochimie, was brought                   Commission of the European Communities
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                                  (Case C-459/98 P)
on 16 December 1998 by Industrie des Poudres
SpheÂriques, represented by Chantal MomeÁge, of the Paris                                  (1999/C 48/29)
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of A. May, 31 Grand-Rue.
                                                                    An appeal against the order made on 14 October 1998 by
                                                                    the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
The appellant claims that the Court should:                         European Communities in Case T-224/97 between Isabel
                                                                    Martínez del Peral Cagigal and Commission of the
                                                                    European Communities was brought before the Court of
Ð set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First            Justice of the European Communities on 16 December
     Instance on 15 October 1998 in Case T-2/95 and itself          1998 by Isabel Martínez del Peral, represented by Antonio
     give final judgment in the case;                               Creus and BegonÄa Uriarte Valiente, with an address for
                                                                    service at the Chambers of Cuatrecasas Abogados, 78
                                                                    Avenue d'Auderghem, Brussels.
Ð order the Council and all the interveners to pay the
     costs of the proceedings for interim measures and on
     the substance of the case before the Court of First            The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:
     Instance, together with the costs of the present
     proceedings.
                                                                    Ð allow this case to proceed and accordingly:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    Ð set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                        14 October 1998 in case T-224/97 on the grounds
The judgment of the Court of First Instance disregards                  stated;
Articles 174 and 176 of the EC Treaty and Articles 7(1)
and (9) and 14 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2423/88
                                                                    Ð give judgment itself on the basis of the submissions of
of 11 July 1988 on protection against dumped or
                                                                        the appellant in her initial application and, in
subsidised imports from countries not members of the
                                                                        particular:
European Economic Community (1).
                                                                        Ð declare admissible the application lodged by the
Following the annulment, by judgment of the Court of                        appellant, which seeks review of her situation
Justice of 11 June 1992 in Case C-358/89 Extramet v.                        under Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations, with a
Council [1992] ECR I-3813, of an initial regulation                         view to possible reclassification;
imposing an anti-dumping duty, the institutions were
under an obligation to take the requisite steps to comply               Ð annul the negative decision of 24 October 1996
with that judgment. The Court of First Instance erred in                    rejecting the appellant's request that an appraisal
finding that it was open to the Commission, to that end,                    be undertaken with a view to the possible
to decide to carry out a fresh investigation involving,                     application of Article 31(2) of the Staff
moreover, a different reference period.                                     Regulations; and, so far as necessary, annul the
                                                                            explicit decision of refusal adopted by the
                                                                            Commission on 29 April 1997 in response to the
The judgment of the Court of First Instance disregards the                  appellant's complaint;
fundamental principle of respect for the right to a fair
hearing and the provisions of Articles 7(4) and 8(3) of the
aforementioned Council Regulation.                                      Ð declare that the appellant is entitled to have
                                                                            her initial classification reviewed, with a view
                                                                            to possible reclassification, with financial
The Court of First Instance wrongly considered that the                     consequences as from 5 October 1995.
numerous irregularities found to have occurred in the
course of the administrative procedure, in particular the
                                                                    4. Order the Commission to pay the costs of the
delayed communication of a note submitted by PEM and
                                                                        proceedings at both instances.
the lack of access, in the form of a non-confidential
summary, to certain documents, did not affect the
appellant's procedural rights.                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
(1) OJ L 209, 2.8.1988, p. 1.
                                                                    Ð Breach of Community law: the order is not consistent
                                                                        with the case-law of the ECJ and CFI concerning
                                                                        recommencement of the period for instituting
 ---pagebreak--- 20.2.1999            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 48/19
     proceedings because of the emergence of new                    Ð order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
     circumstances, according to which an internal
     Commission decision changing the criteria for the
     classification of officials must be regarded as a              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
     supervening event.
Ð Infringement of Article 176 of the EC Treaty, under               Article 12(1) of the directive provides that the Member
     which the Commission should have taken all the steps           States are to bring into force the laws, regulations and
     necessary to comply with the judgment of the CFI in            administrative provisions necessary to comply with the
     Alexopolou (1).                                                directive not later than 21 November 1996.
Ð Breach of the fundamental principle of equal treatment            The Republic of Austria has not adopted the necessary
     embodied in Article 5(3) of the Staff Regulations and          measures within that deadline.
     upheld in the case-law of the ECJ and CFI.
                                                                    (1) OJ L 319, 12.12.1994, p. 14.
Ð Infringement of Community law: the order is not
     consistent with the duty of assistance and protection
     laid down in Article 24 of the Staff Regulations.
Ð The contested order of the CFI contains a defective
     statement of reasons, in that it does not sufficiently         Action brought on 21 December 1998 (lodged on
     explain why the internal Commission decision of                18 December 1998) by the Commission of the European
     7 February 1996 cannot be regarded as a supervening                     Communities against the Hellenic Republic
     event.
                                                                                           (Case C-470/98)
( ) Case T-17/95 ECR-SC [1995] II-683.
 1
                                                                                            (1999/C 48/31)
                                                                    An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
                                                                    before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                    on 21 December 1998 by the Commission of the European
Action brought on 16 December 1998 by the Commission                Communities, represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of
of the European Communities against the Republic of                 its Legal Service, with an address for service in
                            Austria                                 Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of
                                                                    its Legal Service, Wagner Centre.
                       (Case C-461/98)
                        (1999/C 48/30)
                                                                    The Commission claims that the Court should:
An action against the Republic of Austria was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities             Ð declare that, by failing, except as regards fresh meat
on 16 December 1998 by the Commission of the                             and poultrymeat, to take the necessary measures to
European Communities, represented by Frank Benyon,                       ensure that the costs of the veterinary and
Legal Adviser, and Karin Schreyer, a national civil servant              administrative checks in respect of products of
on secondment to the Commission's Legal Service, with an                 agricultural origin from third countries, required
address for service in Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos                under Articles 3(ii) and 4 of Council Directive
Gómez de la Cruz, C 254, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                       90/675/EEC (1), are met by the consignor, the
                                                                         consignee or their agent, without reimbursement by
                                                                         the State, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              obligations under the Treaty and that directive;
Ð declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                                                                    Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
     and administrative measures necessary in order
     to comply with Council Directive 94/56/EC of
     21 November 1994 esetablishing the fundamental
     principles governing the investigation of civil aviation       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
     accidents and incidents (1), alternatively by failing to
     communicate those measures to the Commission, the
     Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations       Under Article 189 of the EC Treaty directives are binding
     under that directive;                                          upon the Member States as to the result to be achieved.