CELEX: C1999/071/31
Language: en
Date: 1999-03-13 00:00:00
Title: Appeal brought on 14 January 1999 by Franco Campoli against the order delivered on 12 October 1998 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-235/97 between Franco Campoli and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-7/99 P)

C 71/18               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    13.3.1999
    competent authority which forwarded the application                this case to a form of arbitrary discrimination between
    to the Commission with a favourable opinion is                     officials engaged when the decision of 7 February 1996
    obliged to give the consent in writing' allowing the              concerning the criteria for initial grading' was in force
    product to be placed on the market, or does that                   and officials, such as the appellant, engaged at a time
    authority retain a discretion not to give such consent?            when the Commission automatically refused to apply
                                                                       Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations.
(2) Must the decision of the Commission of the European
    Communities of 23 January 1997 under which the                    Inconsistency
    French authorities are to authorise the placing on the
    market of the product . . . notified by Ciba-Geigy
    Limited' be interpreted as requiring the French
                                                                       On the one hand the Court of First Instance held in
    Government to give its consent in writing'?
                                                                       Alexopoulou I (1) that the Commission's decision of
                                                                       1 September 1983 was contrary to the Staff Regulations,
(1) On the deliberate release into the environment of genetically      while on the other it allowed the Commission to rectify
    modified organisms, OJ L 117, 8.5.1990, p. 15.                     the irregularity only in part, that is with effect from
                                                                       5 October 1995.
                                                                       Such reasoning appears inconsistent also in the light of the
                                                                       previous case-law of the Court of Justice concerning the
                                                                       grading of staff, which the Commission accepts as being
Appeal brought on 14 January 1999 by Franco Campoli                    of general application.
against the order delivered on 12 October 1998 by the
First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-235/97 between Franco                   Inadequate statement of reasons
Campoli and the Commission of the European
                          Communities
                        (Case C-7/99 P)                                The Court of First Instance fails to give a proper
                        (1999/C 71/31)                                 statement of reasons for its finding that rejection of the
                                                                       official's request for a review of his initial classification is
                                                                       not contrary to 5(3) of the Staff Regulations' inasmuch as
                                                                       it does not explain how it arrives at such a conclusion.
An appeal against the order delivered on 12 October 1998
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-235/97 between Franco                   (1) Case T-17/95 Alexopoulou v. Commission [1995] ECR-SC
Campoli and the Commission of the European                                 II-683.
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 14 January 1999 by Franco
Campoli, represented by Sergio Diana, of the Cagliari Bar.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       Appeal brought on 15 January 1999 by Carmen Gómez
                                                                       de Enterría y Sanchez against the judgment delivered on
Ð set aside the order delivered by the Court of First                  17 November 1998 by the First Chamber of the Court of
    Instance on 12 October 1998 in Case T-235/97                       First Instance of the European Communities in Case
    Campoli v Commission;                                              T-131/97 between Carmen Gómez de Enterría y Sanchez
                                                                                       and the European Parliament
Ð uphold the claims submitted at first instance;                                              (Case C-8/99 P)
                                                                                               (1999/C 71/32)
Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 17 November
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    1998 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance
                                                                       of the European Communities in Case T-131/97 between
                                                                       Carmen Gómez de Enterría Sanchez and the European
Breach of the principle of equal treatment                             Parliament was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities on 15 January 1999 by Carmen
                                                                       Gómez de Enterría y Sanchez, represented by Eric
To find the application inadmissible inasmuch as it seeks              Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
to challenge afresh, without there being any new facts, the            Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du
decision taken by the Commission in 1985, amounts in                   Fort Rheinsheim.