CELEX: C1998/312/07
Language: en
Date: 1998-10-10 00:00:00
Title: Appeal brought on 24 July 1998 by the European Parliament against the judgment delivered on 26 May 1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-205/96 between Roland Bieber and the European Parliament (Case C-284/98 P)

10.10.98             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 312/3
                 ORDER OF THE COURT                                  French law, established in Paris, represented by Jacques
                       (Third Chamber)                               Manseau, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8Ð10
                        of 16 July 1998                              Rue Mathias Hardt, Ð appeal against the order of the
in Case C-252/97 P: N v. Commission of the European                  Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 29 September
                        Communities (1)                              1997 in Case T-83/97 Sateba v. Commission [1997] ECR
                                                                     II-1523, seeking to have that order set aside, the other
 (Appeal Ð Disciplinary measures Ð Removal from post)                party to the proceedings being the Commission of the
                         (98/C 312/05)                               European Communities (Agent: Hendrik van Lier) Ð the
                                                                     Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm,
               (Language of the case: French)                        President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray and K. M.
                                                                     Ioannou, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; R. Grass,
                                                                     Registrar, has made an order on 17 July 1998, the
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       operative part of which is as follows:
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     1. The appeal is dismissed.
In Case C-252/97 P: N, a former official of the
Commission of the European Communities, represented
by Xavier MagneÂe, of the Brussels Bar, with an address              2. The appellant is to pay the costs of the present
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis                       proceedings.
Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim Ð appeal against the
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European              (1) OJ C 55, 20.2.1998.
Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 15 May 1997 in Case
T-273/94 N v. Commission [1997] ECR-SC II-289, seeking
to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the
proceedings being the Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia, assisted by Denis
Waelbroeck) Ð the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:                Appeal brought on 24 July 1998 by the European
C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), President of Chamber, J. C.                 Parliament against the judgment delivered on 26 May
Moitinho de Almeida and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; F. G.              1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
Jacobs, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made              of the European Communities in Case T-205/96 between
an order on 16 July 1998, the operative part of which is                     Roland Bieber and the European Parliament
as follows:                                                                                (Case C-284/98 P)
1. The appeal is dismissed.                                                                  (98/C 312/07)
2. The applicant is to pay the costs.                                An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 May
                                                                     1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
(1) OJ C 295, 27.9.1997.                                             of the European Communities in Case T-205/96 between
                                                                     Roland Bieber and the European Parliament was brought
                                                                     before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                     on 24 July 1998 by the European Parliament, represented
                                                                     by JoseÂ-Luis Rufas Quintana and Evelyn Waldherr, acting
                                                                     as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                 ORDER OF THE COURT                                  the Registry of the General Secretariat of the European
                                                                     Parliament, Tower Building.
                      (Fourth Chamber)
                        of 17 July 1998                              The appellant claims that the Court should:
in Case C-422/97 P: SocieÂteÂ Anonyme de Traverses en
BeÂton ArmeÂ (Sateba) v. Commission of the European                  Ð set aside the contested judgment of the Court of First
                        Communities (1)                                  Instance of 26 May 1998 in Case T-205/96 Bieber v.
                                                                         Parliament (1),
(Appeal Ð Public supply contracts Ð Closure of the file
concerning a complaint regarding the conduct of the
                    contracting authority)                           Ð alternatively, annul points 2, 3 and 6 of the operative
                                                                         part of that judgment so as to reduce the period in
                         (98/C 312/06)                                   respect of which the European Parliament is ordered
                                                                         to compensate the respondent to the period from
               (Language of the case: French)                            15 June 1995 to 13 December 1995,
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       Ð grand the form of order sought by the European
         published in the European Court Reports)                        Parliament in the proceedings at first instance, and
In Case C-422/97 P: SocieÂteÂ Anonyme de Traverses en                Ð make a ruling as to costs in accordance with the
BeÂton ArmeÂ (Sateba), a company incorporated under                      applicable provisions of the Rules of Procedure.
 ---pagebreak--- C 312/4                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    10.10.98
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                         to a semen collection centre as laid down in
                                                                            paragraph 1(b) of Chapter I of Annex B to Directive
Infringement of Community law, and in particular:                           88/407/EEC?
                                                                       If the answer to question 1 is affirmative:
Ð disregard of the case-law of the Court of Justice with
     regard to reinstatement following the termination of a
     period of leave on personal grounds: according to the             2. Should the transitional rule set out in Article 20 of
     Court of Justice, an institution is not obliged to                     Directive 88/407/EEC be construed as meaning that it
     reinstate an official on the first occasion that the                   is applicable by analogy to semen which was collected
     requirements of Article 40 of the Staff Regulations are                and processed prior to 1 July 1994?
     fulfilled if the official's conduct is such as to cast
     doubt on the seriousness of his intention to make                 If the answer to question 1 is affirmative and the answer
     himself available to the institution (2). The Court of            to question 2 negative:
     First Instance wrongly allowed itself to be guided by
     its own interpretation of Article 40(4)(d) of the Staff           3. Is Directive 93/60/EEC invalid as being contrary to
     Regulations of Officials (3), with the result that it made             general principles of law, in particular the principle of
     incomplete findings of fact and declined to accept                     the protection of legitimate expectations and the
     material evidence,                                                     principle of proportionality, in so far as that Directive
                                                                            does not provide for transitional measures to counter
Ð disregard of the case-law of the Court of Justice with                    obstacles to intra-Community trade in the semen of
     regard to non-contractual liability: the Court of First                bulls which had already, in accordance with the
     Instance failed to take into account the extent to                     provisions then in force, been admitted to an approved
     which the respondent contributed to the delay in his                   semen collection centre before Directive 93/60/EEC
     reinstatement.                                                         was adopted?
(1) OJ C 234, 25.7.1998, p. 25.                                        If the answer to question 1 is negative:
(2) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 27 October 1977 in
    Joined Cases 126/75, 34/96 and 92/96 Giry v. Commission            4. The provision in Article 1(8) of Directive 93/60/EEC
    [1977] ECR 1937, paragraphs 7 and 20.
                                                                            amended the second subparagraph of paragraph 1(b)
(3) Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 July 1993 in Case
    T-40/90 Giordani v. Commission [1993] ECR II-721.
                                                                            of Chapter I of Annex B to Directive 88/407/EEC
                                                                            (The animals may not previously have been kept in
                                                                            other herds of a lower status') to read The animals
                                                                            may not previously have been kept in one or more
                                                                            herds of a lower status'. Must this amendment be
                                                                            construed as being exclusively a clarification or as a
                                                                            substantive amendment to the requirements applying
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van                       in regard to the admission of bovine animals to an
Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven in the case of K. V. S.                       approved semen collection centre?
International BV v. Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer
                           en Visserij                                 (1) OJ L 194, 22.7.1988, p. 10.
                        (Case C-301/98)                                (2) OJ L 186, 28.7.1993, p. 28.
                         (98/C 312/08)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by decision of 17 July 1998 from
the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven                          Appeal brought on 4 August 1998 by David T. Keeling
(Administrative Court for Trade and Industry), which was               against the order made on 8 June 1998 by the Third
received at the Court Registry on 31 July 1998, for a                  Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
preliminary ruling in the case of K. V. S. International BV            Communities in Case T-148/97 (1) between David T.
v. Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij                     Keeling and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
(Minister for Agriculture, Nature Management and                                     Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Fisheries) on the following questions:                                                       (Case C-305/98 P)
                                                                                               (98/C 312/09)
1. Must Article 3(b) of Directive 88/407/EEC (1) be
     construed as meaning that semen from a bull which
     was admitted to an approved semen collection centre               An appeal against the order made on 8 June 1998 by the
     before the adoption of amending Directive 93/60/                  Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
     EEC (2) on the ground that it satisfied the admission             European Communities in Case T-148/97 between David
     requirements in force at that time does not (any                  T. Keeling and the Office for Harmonisation in the
     longer) satisfy the condition set out in Article 3(b) of          Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), was brought
     the Directive if the animal in question fails, at the time        before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
     when certification of the semen is applied for, to                on 4 August 1998 by David T. Keeling, of Alicante, Spain,
     satisfy the amended requirement governing admission               represented by Professor A. A. Dashwood, instructed by