CELEX: C2001/150/26
Language: en
Date: 2001-05-19 00:00:00
Title: Case C-120/01: Action brought on 16 March 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

C 150/14               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       19.5.2001
Action brought on 16 March 2001 by the Commission of                  Appeal brought on 19 March 2001 by Eoghan O’Hannra-
         the European Communities against Ireland                     chain against the judgment delivered on 16 January 2001
                                                                      by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                      European Communities in Joined Cases T-97/99 and T-
                                                                      99/99 between M. Chamier and E. O’Hannrachain and the
                         (Case C-120/01)                                                      European Parliament
                                                                                               (Case C-121/01 P)
                         (2001/C 150/26)
                                                                                                (2001/C 150/27)
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of             An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 January 2001
Justice of the European Communities on 16 March 2001 by               by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
the Commission of the European Communities, represented               European Communities in Joined Cases T-97/99 and T-99/99
by Mr Richard Wainwright, acting as agent, with an address            between M. Chamier and E. O’Hannrachain and the European
for service in Luxembourg.                                            Parliament was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities on 19 March 2001 by E. O’Hannra-
                                                                      chain, represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, of the
                                                                      Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Brussels.
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                      The appellant claims that the Court should:
—     declare that, by failing by 16 September 1999 to prepare        —     set aside the judgment delivered on 16 January 2001 by
      and communicate to the Commission the plans, outlines                 the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the EC
      and summaries required pursuant to Article 11 and                     in Joined Cases T-97/99 and T-99/99;
      Article 4(1) of Council Directive 96/59/EC (1) on the
      disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinat-              —     consequently, grant the appellant the relief sought
      ed terphenyls (PCB/PCT), Ireland has failed to fulfil its                   by him in the proceedings at first instance, and thus:
      obligations under that Directive;
                                                                            —     annul the appointing authority’s decision of 16 July
                                                                                  1998 appointing Mr. L.V. to the post of Director-
—     order Ireland to pay the costs.                                             General of the Directorate-General for Finance and
                                                                                  Financial Control and the decision of the same date
                                                                                  rejecting the appellant’s application for the post and,
                                                                                  in so far as may be necessary, annul the decision
                                                                                  adopted on 21 January 1999 rejecting the appellant’s
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                   complaint;
                                                                            —     order the respondent to pay damages estimated to
                                                                                  amount, on a fair and equitable basis, to
Article 11 of the Directive requires Member States to draw up                     100 000 euro;
plans and outlines in connection with the decontamination or
disposal of equipment containing polychlorinated biphenyls            —     order the respondent to pay the costs.
(PCBs), and to communicate these plans and outlines to the
Commission. Article 4(1) obliges Member States to compile
inventories of equipment with certain PCB volumes and to
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
send summaries of such inventories to the Commission.
                                                                      —     Infringement of Article 29 of the Staff Regulations of
                                                                            officials: the Court of First Instance misconstrued
To date Ireland has not communicated such plans, outlines                   Article 29 of the Staff Regulations by taking the view that
and summaries to the Commission, nor is the Commission in                   the appointing authority may have recourse to the
possession of any other information enabling it to conclude                 procedure referred to in Article 29(2) of the Staff
that Ireland has prepared these plans, outlines and summaries.              Regulations after initiating a recruitment procedure under
                                                                            Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations without first
                                                                            carrying out an examination of the comparative merits of
                                                                            the eligible candidates under Article 29(1) with a view to
(1) OJ L 243, 24.09.1996, p. 31.                                            verifying whether they meet the requirements of the
                                                                            notice of vacancy. By acting in that way, the appointing
                                                                            authority failed to examine whether, in the present case
                                                                            and in accordance with Article 29 of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                            the promotion/transfer procedure was likely to result in
                                                                            the appointment of a person possessing the highest levels
                                                                            of ability, efficiency and integrity.