CELEX: C2000/335/61
Language: en
Date: 2000-11-25 00:00:00
Title: Case C-343/00: Action brought on 18 September 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

25.11.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 335/35
c)     failure to comply with the duties of loyal co-operation,            Pleas in law and main arguments
       legal certainty and good administration;
                                                                           —     Error of law, in that the Court of First Instance exceeded
d)     breach of legitimate expectations.                                        the limits of its power of review and in so doing gave an
                                                                                 incorrect and unduly restrictive interpretation of the
                                                                                 second paragraph of Article 17 of the Staff Regulations
(1) Commission Decision of 5 July 2000 excluding from Community                  of Officials: the fact that an official does not act in a
    financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under
                                                                                 ‘managerial’ capacity is clearly not decisive and is not to
    the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and
    Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ L 180, 19.07.2000, p. 49).                        be found as a condition in the second paragraph of
(2) Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of the Council of 21 April 1970 on                Article 17 of the Staff Regulations. Likewise, the insti-
    the financing of the common agricultural policy [OJ L 94,                    tution must be in a position to control the points of view
    28.04.70, p. 13 (SE SERI 70(1) p. 218)].                                     adopted by its officials, especially where they conflict
(3) on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ L 160,                with those expressed at the time, or where the official
    26.06.1999, p. 103).                                                         expresses his views on matters in respect of which it is
(4) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2080/92 of 30 June 1992 instituting              the Commission’s express intention to adopt a ‘neutral’
    a Community aid scheme for forestry measures in agriculture (OJ              policy. Last, it is difficult to see how a point of view
    L 215, 30.07.92, p. 96).                                                     addressed to an audience of ‘specialists’ is by nature less
                                                                                 damaging to the institution than if it were expressed in
                                                                                 other circumstances.
                                                                           —     Lack of reasoning.
Appeal brought on 15 September 2000 by the Com-
mission of the European Communities against the judg-
ment delivered on 14 July 2000 by the Fourth Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-
ties in Case T-82/99 between Michael Cwik and the
          Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           Action brought on 18 September 2000 by the Com-
                         (Case C-340/00 P)                                 mission of the European Communities against the French
                                                                                                        Republic
                          (2000/C 335/60)
                                                                                                    (Case C-343/00)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 July 2000 by
the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                                                    (2000/C 335/61)
European Communities in Case T-82/99 between Michael
Cwik and the Commission of the European Communities
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                    An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Communities on 15 September 2000 by the Commission of                      Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 Septem-
the European Communities, represented by J. Currall, Legal                 ber 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
Adviser, acting as Agent, and Denis Waelbroeck, of the Brussels            represented by Gérard Berscheid, of its Legal Service, acting as
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of            Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
C. Gómez de la Cruz, of the Legal Service, Wagner Centre,                 of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also of the Commission’s Legal
Kirchberg.                                                                 Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      declare the appeal admissible and well founded;
                                                                           —     Declare that, by failing to bring into force, within the
—      set aside the judgment delivered by the Fourth Chamber                    prescribed period, the laws, regulations and administrat-
       of the Court of First Instance on 14 July 2000 in Case                    ive provisions needed in order to comply with Com-
       T-82/99 Michael Cwik v European Commission;                               mission Directive 98/87/EC of 13 November 1998
                                                                                 amending Council Directive 79/373/EEC on the market-
—      accordingly, dismiss the applicant’s action in that case or,              ing of compound feedingstuffs (1), the French Republic
       in the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First             has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of
       Instance;                                                                 Directive 98/87/EC;
—      order the applicant to bear his own costs.                          —     Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 335/36              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25.11.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              law in finding that the AECC had not committed a
                                                                             manifest error of assessment or misused its powers by
The pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those in                   not considering the applicant’s application and in not
Case C-335/00 (2); the period for transposition laid down by                 declaring that the contested decision was manifestly
Article 2 of the Directive expired on 30 June 1999.                          vitiated by an inadequate statement of reasons.
(1) OJ L 318, 27.11.1998, p. 43.                                       —     Error in law: the Court of First Instance committed an
(2) OJ C ...                                                                 error in law by considering that the applicant had not
                                                                             lodged within the time-limits a complaint against the
                                                                             decision not to renew his contract as a temporary
                                                                             member of staff beyond 30 June 1998. A definitive and
                                                                             unambiguous decision to that effect is not to be found in
                                                                             the letter from the Director of CEDEFOP of 25 May 1998
                                                                             but in the letter of 3 June 1998 which is based on a
Appeal brought on 18 September 2000 by Michel Hend-                          reexamination of the applicant’s legal situation in the
rickx against the judgment delivered on 13 July 2000 by                      light of a new fact, namely the report of the chairperson
the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                      of the selection committee.
European Communities in Case T-87/99 between Michel
Hendrickx and European Centre for the Development of
                      Vocational Training
                       (Case C-344/00 P)
                        (2000/C 335/62)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 July 2000 by
the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-87/99 between Michel
Hendrickx and European Centre for the Development of
Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) was brought before the Court
of Justice of the European Communities on 18 September                 Appeal brought on 19 September 2000 by the Fédération
2000 by Michel Hendrickx, represented by Jean-Nöel Louis and           Nationale d’Agriculture Biologique des Régions de France
Véronique Peere, with an address for service in Luxembourg at          (FNAB), the Syndicat Européen des Transformateurs de
the offices of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire s.à.r.l., 13 Avenue       Distributeurs de Produits de l’Agriculture Biologique
du Bois.                                                               (SETRAB) and Sàrl Est Distribution Biogam against the
                                                                       order delivered on 11 July 2000 by the Court of First
The appellant claims that the Court should:                            Instance (Third Chamber) in Case T-268/99 between
                                                                       the Fédération Nationale d’Agriculture Biologique des
—     annul the decision by CEDEFOP rejecting the applicant’s          Régions de France (FNAB), the Syndicat Européen des
      application for the post of Head of General Support              Transformateurs et Distributeurs de Produits de l’Agricul-
      Services (Administration);                                       ture Biologique and Sàrl Est Distribution Biogam and the
                                                                                       Council of the European Union
—     annul the decision not to renew the applicant’s contract
      as a member of the temporary staff contract beyond
      30 June 1998;
                                                                                               (Case C-345/00 P)
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas and main arguments                                                                        (2000/C 335/63)
—     Error in law: the Court of First Instance committed an
      error in law by considering that the authority empowered
      to conclude contracts of employment (AECC) had not               An appeal against the order delivered on 11 July 2000 by the
      committed a manifest error of assessment or misused its          Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
      powers by not considering the applicant for the post of          Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
      Head of General Support Services (Administration) on             the European Communities on 19 September 2000 by the
      the ground that he ‘... has not obtained the minimum             Fédération Nationale d’Agriculture Biologique des Régions de
      requisite number of points’. The Court committed an              France (FNAB), the Syndicat Européen des Transformateurs et
      error of assessment by not verifying the lawfulness of the       Distributeurs de Produits de l’Agriculture Biologique (SETRAB)
      work of the selection committee and, in particular, of the       and Sàrl Est Distribution Biogam, represented by Dirk Leer-
      decision to set a minimum of 70 % of the points in               makers, of the Brussels and Luxembourg Bars, and Catriona
      the view of the binding nature of vacancy/competition            Hatton, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg
      notices. In those circumstances, it committed an error in        at 5 Place du Théâtre.