CELEX: C2003/019/35
Language: en
Date: 2003-01-25 00:00:00
Title: Case C-427/02 P: Appeal brought on 25 November 2002 by Giuseppe Di Pietro against the order delivered on 27 September 2002 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-254/01 between Giuseppe Di Pietro and Court of Auditors of the European Communities

C 19/20                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     25.1.2003
the meaning of Article 4(2) of those Directives, the staff                         cations, annul the decision of the Court of Auditors in
concerned retain the right to request termination of that                          that respect and adopt any appropriate consequent
relationship according to the detailed rules in the relevant                       measure;
provisions?
                                                                             —     acquire the documents submitted by the end of the period
( 1) Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the
                                                                                   prescribed by the notice confirming the claims made
     approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the                relating to whether Mr. Hervé meets all the requirements;
     safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of
     undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses (OJ L 61 of
     05.03.1977, p. 26).                                                     —     in any event, find that the requirements do not comply
( 2) Council Directive 98/50/EC of 29 June 1998 amending Directive                 with the requirements objectively discernable from the
     77/187/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member                     competition notice, annul Mr Hervé’s appointment and
     States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the               adopt any appropriate consequent measure;
     event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses
     (OJ L 201 of 17.07.1998, p. 88).
( 3) Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approxi-           —     in the event that the applicant’s is the only candidature
     mation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
                                                                                   suited to the post and meeting the requirements to have
     safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of
     undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses               been put forward for appointment as Secretary General
     (OJ L 82 of 22.03.2001, p. 16).                                               of the Court of Auditors, declare that Mr Di Pietro is
                                                                                   entitled to be appointed Secretary General, in view of the
                                                                                   fact that the notice did not reserve a discretion to the
                                                                                   Court regarding the appointment of those candidates
                                                                                   deemed suitable;
                                                                             —     order the reimbursement of the costs and fees disbursed
                                                                                   by the applicant and compensation for the damage
                                                                                   suffered as a result of not being appointed to the post.
Appeal brought on 25 November 2002 by Giuseppe Di
Pietro against the order delivered on 27 September 2002
by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Case T-254/01 between
Giuseppe Di Pietro and Court of Auditors of the European
                              Communities                                    Pleas and main arguments
                           (Case C-427/02 P)
                                                                             The applicant challenges the fact that the Court of First
                                                                             Instance declared his application manifestly inadmissible and
                             (2003/C 19/35)                                  upheld the objection of the Court of Auditors that his
                                                                             statement of 2 August 2001 cannot be deemed to be a
                                                                             complaint.
An appeal against the order delivered on 27 September 2002
by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                   According to the Court of First Instance, in his letter of
European Communities in Case T-254/01 between Giuseppe                       2 August 200 the applicant does not challenge the legality of
Di Pietro and Court of Auditors of the European Communities                  the decision which adversely affects him nor does it seek any
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                      means of settling the dispute out of court. Instead, it merely
Communities on 25 November 2002 by Giuseppe Di Pietro,                       sets out a number of questions and requires the production of
represented by Giuseppe Monforte, whose chambers are in                      a number of documents. Therefore the aforementioned letter
Messina.                                                                     cannot be deemed a complaint within the meaning of
                                                                             Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                             The applicant argues that the Court of First Instance is wrong
—      acquire the documents relating to the candidates admitted
                                                                             in that his statement of 2 August 2001 contains a request that
       to the examination;
                                                                             action be taken.
—      find that the documents do not comply with the require-
       ments objectively discernable from the competition
       notice, declare inadmissible the non-complying appli-