CELEX: C1995/286/09
Language: en
Date: 1995-10-28 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 30 August 1995 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-290/95)

No C 286/4              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   28 . 10 . 95
of First Instance in Case T-31 /91 between Solvay SA and the                  such as to affect the interests of the addressee of the
Commission of the European Communities was brought                            decision .
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
30 August 1995 by the Commission of the European                       (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 , p . 21 .
Communities, represented by J. Curral and B. J. Drijber, of
the Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the office of C. Gomez de la Cruz .
The appellant claims that the Court should :                           Appeal brought on 30 August 1995 by the Commission of
                                                                       the European Communities against the judgment delivered
1 . set aside the Court of First Instance 's judgment in Case          on 29 June 1995 by the First Chamber ( Extended
    T-31 /91 (');                                                      Composition ) of the Court of First Instance in Case T-32/91
                                                                       between Solvay SA and the Commission of the European
                                                                                                    Communities
2 . dismiss the ground of annulment of the Commission's                                          Case C-288/95 P)
    decision based upon the lack of authentication;                                                 95/C 286/08 )
3 . remit the case to the Court of First Instance for a                An appeal against the judgment delivered on 29 June 1995
    decision on the other grounds of annulment alleged                 by the First Chamber ( Extended Composition ) of the Court
    against the Commission 's decision ;                               of First Instance in Case T-32/91 between Solvay SA and the
                                                                       Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
4 . order Solvay to pay the costs of the appeal .                      30 August 1995 by the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities, represented by J. Curral and B. J. Drijber, of
                                                                       the Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    at the office of C. Gomez de la Cruz .
— Errors of law and reasoning as regards the admissibility             The appellant claims that the Court should :
    of Solvay's new plea in law, the organization of the
    procedure and the rules of proof and evidence . The                 1 . set aside the Court of First Instance's judgment in Case
    Court of First Instance committed an error of law by                      T-32/91 ( 1 );
    holding that the statements by the Commission to which
    reference is made could amount in themselves to a new              2 . dismiss the ground of annulment of the Commission 's
    matter of fact for the purposes of Article 48 ( 2 ) of its                 decision based upon the lack of authentication;
    Rules of Procedure . The Court committed an error of
                                                                        3.     remit the case to the Court of First Instance for a
    law by holding that there was no limit of time for raising
    a new plea in law under Article 48 ( 2 ) of its Rules of                   decision on the other grounds of annulment alleged
    Procedure . In ordering the Commission to produce the                      against the Commission 's decision;
    text of the decision at issue as authenticated at the time,
    the Court committed an error of law, in that it took a              4 . order Solvay to pay the costs of the appeal .
     mistaken view of its procedure and the rules of proof and
     evidence, and also made a mistake of reasoning in that it          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     failed to explain in both the order of 25 October and the
     judgment why it had concluded that it should order the             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
     Commission to produce that text .                                  in Case C-287/95 P ( 2 ).
 — Errors of law and reasoning as regards the purpose of                (') OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 , p. 21 .
     authentication and the consequences of a failure to                ( 2 ) See page 3 of this Official Journal .
     authenticate the decision at the time of its adoption. The
     Court committed an error of law by holding that
     authentication was a formal requirement which had to
     be observed independently of the existence or not of any
     evidence capable of casting doubt on the authenticity of
     the notified text . The Court committed an error of law            Action brought on 30 August 1995 by the Commission of
     and of reasoning by holding that authentication had to                the European Communities against the Italian Republic
     take place before the act was notified to the addressee,                                     ( Case C-290/95 )
     failing which it was void, and that the authentication
                                                                                                    ( 95/C 286/09 )
     carried out in the present case had been defective . The
     Court committed an error of law and incidentally failed
     to fulfill its obligation to give reasons for its judgment by       An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
     failing to consider whether the alleged defect had been             the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
 ---pagebreak--- 28 . 10. 95         I EN |                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 286/5
30 August 1995 by the Commission of the European                       — refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for a
Communities, represented by Antonio Aresu, of its Legal                    fresh ruling on Mr Ojha 's claims for compensation for
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                   the non-material damage suffered by him as a result of
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                       the above decision ,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                       — order the Commission to pay the costs of these
The applicant claims that the Court should :                               proceedings, and of the proceedings before the Court of
                                                                           First Instance .
— declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
     period the laws, regulations and administrative                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     measures necessary to implement Council Directive
     92/109/EEC (') of 14 December 1992 on the                         1 . Error of law and reasoning as regards the extent of the
                                                                           Commission 's obligation to state reasons , in so far as the
     manufacture and the placing on the market of certain                  Court of First Instance held that sufficient reasons were
     substances used in the illicit manufacture of narcotic
                                                                           stated for the contested Commission decision
     drugs and psychotropic substances, the Italian Republic
     has failed to fulfil its obligations under Community                  ( paragraphs 59 to 62 of the judgment );
     law,                                                              2 . Error of law and reasoning in that the Court of First
                                                                           Instance held that the Commission had not infringed the
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .                            appellant's defence rights by failing to communicate to
                                                                           him the documents on which the contested decision was
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        based;
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, which states that a directive is         3 . Error of law and reasoning in that the Court of First
binding upon Member States as to the result to be achieved,                Instance upheld the Commission 's argument that the
entails for Member States an obligation to comply with the                 mere existence of complaints against the appellant,
time limits laid down in directives for their transposition . In           irrespective of whether they were well founded, justified
the present case, the prescribed period expired on 1 July                  the reassignment of the appellant to Brussels in the
1993 , at which time the Italian Republic had still not                    interests of the service;
enacted the provisions necessary to comply with Directive
92 / 109/EEC .                                                         4 . Error of law and reasoning in that the Court of First
                                                                           Instance accepted the Commission 's argument that the
(•) OJ No L 370 , 19 . 12 . 1992 , p . 76 .                                contested decision could be justified by the interests of
                                                                           the service, having regard to an allegedly tense situation
                                                                           within the service ;
                                                                       5 . Error of law and reasoning in that the Court of First
                                                                           Instance did not take the personal interests of the
Appeal lodged on 12 September 1995 by Girish Ojha                          appellant into account;
against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities ( First Chamber ) of 6 July 1995 in               6 . Infringement of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations in
Case T-36/93 Girish Ojha v. Commission of the European                     that the Court of First Instance allowed documents not
                          Communities                                      forming part of an official 's personal file to be used
                      ( Case C-294/95 P)                                   against him.
                         ( 95/C 286/ 10 )
An appeal was lodged before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 12 September 1995 by Girish                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Dublin Circuit
Ojha , represented by E. H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of the                  Family Court, by order of that court of 15 May 1995 , in the
Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg                         case of Jackie Farrell against James Long
at the Chambers of L. Friden, Avenue Guillaume, against the
                                                                                               ( Case C-295 /95 )
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ( First Chamber ) of 6 July 1995 in Case                                             ( 95 /C 286/ 11
T-36/93 Girish Ojha v. Commission of the European
Communities .                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by an order of the Dublin Circuit
The appellant claims that the Court should :                           Family Court of 15 May 1995 , which was received at the
                                                                       Court Registry on 15 September 1995 , for a preliminary
— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of             ruling in the case of Jackie Farrell against James Long, on the
     the European Communities of 6 July 1995 in Case                   following question :
     T-36/93 ,
                                                                       Do the provisions of Article 5 ( 2 ) of the Convention on
— annul the Commission 's decision of 20 October 1992 ,                Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
     reassigning the appellant together with his post from the         Commercial Matters signed at Brussels on 27 September
      Commission delegation in Dacca to the seat of the                 1968 require as a condition precedent to the institution of
      Commission in Brussels,                                          maintenance proceedings in the Irish Courts by an applicant