CELEX: C1999/071/04
Language: en
Date: 1999-03-13 00:00:00
Title: ORDER OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 19 November 1998 in Case C-149/98 P: Anne-Marie Toller v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal clearly inadmissible and clearly unfounded)

13.3.1999             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 71/3
The Court manifestly lacks jurisdiction to reply to the              Appeal brought on 11 December 1998 by EugeÂnio
reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Oberlan-              Branco, Lda against the judgment delivered on
desgericht Köln by order of 8 May 1998.                              15 September 1998 by the Third Chamber of the Court
                                                                     of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
                                                                     T-142/97 between EugeÂnio Branco, Lda and the
(1) OJ C 234, 25.7.1998.
                                                                              Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                           (Case C-453/98 P)
                                                                                             (1999/C 71/05)
                  ORDER OF THE COURT                                 An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 September
                                                                     1998 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance
                        (First Chamber)
                                                                     of the European Communities in Case T-142/97 between
                     of 19 November 1998                             EugeÂnio Branco Lda and the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
in Case C-149/98 P: Anne-Marie Toller v Commission of                the European Communities on 11 December 1998 by
                 the European Communities (1)                        EugeÂnio Branco Lda, represented by Bolota Belchior, of
    (Appeal clearly inadmissible and clearly unfounded)              the Vila Nova de Gaia Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques Schroeder, 6 Rue
                         (1999/C 71/04)                              Heine.
                (Language of the case: French)                       The appellant claims that the Court should:
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       Ð quash the judgment of the Court of First Instance
          published in the European Court Reports)                       under appeal;
In Case C-149/98 P: Anne-Marie Toller, a former official             Ð uphold all the claims made at first instance; and
of the Commission of the European Communities, residing
in Brussels, represented by Benoît Lombart and Eric
Boigelot, both of the Brussels Bar, with an address for              Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz,
2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim Ð appeal against the judgment
of the Court of First Instance of the European                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 19 February 1998 in
Case T-142/96 Toller v Commission [1998] ECR-SC
II-179, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other           Ð Failure to comply with and infringement of Article 5(4)
party to the proceedings being the Commission of the                     of Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83 (1): Paragraphs 47
European Communities, represented by Julian Currall,                     and 49 of the judgment under appeal constitute an
Legal Adviser, and Christine Berardis-Kayser, of its Legal               error of assessment by the lower court. It is not
Service, acting as Agents, assisted by Denis Waelbroeck Ð                factually correct to claim that the InspeccËaÄo Geral de
the Court (First Chamber), composed of D. A. O. Edward,                  FinancËas (General Tax Inspectorate) audited the
acting for the President of the First Chamber, L. Sevón                  appellant's file at the request of the DAFSE, that, at
(Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges; Advocate General:                  the material time, it was empowered to conduct
D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer; Registrar: R. Grass, made an                     investigations into ESF projects or that it found
order on 19 November 1998, the operative part of which                   irregularities' not previously detected by the DAFSE.
is as follows:
                                                                     Ð Breach of the principles of protection of legitimate
(1) The appeal is dismissed;                                             expectations and legal certainty: The appellant
                                                                         contests the judgment under appeal inasmuch as it
                                                                         regards the period of two years (between 12 January
(2) Mrs Anne-Marie Toller's application for legal aid is                 1995 and 16 December 1996) as a reasonable period
     dismissed;                                                          for adopting the contested decision. The fact that the
                                                                         Court of First Instance did not set out its views, in
                                                                         Case T-85/94 (2), on the legality of the reduction in the
(3) Mrs Anne-Marie Toller is ordered to pay the costs.                   assistance but ruled only that the decision at issue did
                                                                         not contain a statement of reasons is not such as to
(1) OJ C 184, 13.6.1998.                                                 prevent giving rise to and reinforcing legitimate
                                                                         expectations on the part of the appellant. Indeed, since
                                                                         the final payment claim was certified by the DAFSE
                                                                         and the Commission's decision against such