CELEX: C1997/054/17
Language: en
Date: 1997-02-22 00:00:00
Title: Appeal brought on 5 December 1996 by J. Antonissen against the order of the President of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 29 November 1996 in Case T-179/96 R between, on the one hand, J. Antonissen and, on the other hand, the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-393/96 P[R])

22 . 2 . 97             EN |                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 54/9
                  ORDER OF THE COURT                                      the Order was suspended with effect from 19 October
                         ( Fourth Chamber )                               1983 , he was authorized to conduct proceedings in his
                                                                          own name by decision of 23 February 1996 .
                      of 28 November 1996
in Case C- 11 9/96 P Susan Ryan-Sheridan v. European                      By orders of 5 December 1996 the Court ( Fifth Chamber )
Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working                      ordered as follows :
                            Conditions (')
                                                                          1 . The appeals of Mr Orlando Lopes are inadmissible.
(Appeal — Officials — Employees of the European
Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working
                                                                          2 . The cases shall he removed from the register of the
Conditions — Recruitment procedure — Rejection of an
                                                                               Court of Justice.
                         internal candidate)
                             ( 97/C 54/ 15 )                              (') ECR-SC 1996 II , p . 185 and p . 239 .
                (Language of the case: French)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will he
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                          Appeal brought on 5 December 1996 by J. Antonissen
                                                                          against the order of the President of the Court of First
In Case C-l 19/96 P: Susan Ryan-Sheridan, an employee of                  Instance of the European Communities of 29 November
the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living                     1996 in Case T-l 79/96 R between, on the one hand, J.
and Working Conditions, represented by Marc-Albert                        Antonissen and, on the other hand, the Council of the
Lucas , of the Liege Bar, with an address for service in                  European Union and the Commission of the European
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn , 21 Rue de                                               Communities
Nassau , — appeal against the judgment of the Court of
                                                                                               ( Case C-393 /96 P1R1 )
First Instance (Third Chamber ) of 15 February 1996 in
Case T-589/93 Ryan-Sheridan v. European Foundation for                                               ( 97/C 54/ 17 )
the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions
[ 1996 ] ECR-SC 11-0000 , seeking to have that judgment set               An appeal against the order of the President of the Court
aside, the other party to the proceedings being European                  of First Instance of the European Communities of
Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working                      29 November 1996 in Case T-l 79/96 R between , on the
Conditions ( Agents : Clive Purkiss, Terry Sheehan and                    one hand, J. Antonissen and , on the other hand, the
Denis     Waelbroeck ),        the  Court    ( Fourth    Chamber ),       Council of the European Union and the Commission of
composed of: J. L. Murray, President of the Chamber,                      the European Communities was brought before the Court
P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Rapporteur ) and H. Ragnemalm , Judges;                of Justice of the European Communities on 5 December
C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, made                   1996 by J. Antonissen, represented by PL . H. Pijnacker
an order on 28 November 1996 , the operative part of                      Hordijk, of the Amsterdam Bar, and M. T. P. J. van Oers,
which is as follows :
                                                                          of the Hague Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                          Luxembourg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 Avenue
1 . The appeal is dismissed.                                              Guillaume .
2 . The appellant is ordered to pay the costs.                            The appellant claims that the Court should :
(') OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .                                          — set aside the order of the President of the Court of
                                                                               First Instance of 29 November 1996 in Case T-179/
                                                                               96 R,
                                                                          — refer the case back to ( the President of) the Court of
                                                                               First Instance for judgment, and
                  ORDER OF THE COURT
                       of 5 December 1996
                                                                          — order the Council and the Commission to pay the
                                                                               costs .
in Joined Cases C-174/96 P and C-175/96 P Orlando
   Lopes v. Court of Justice of the European Communities                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                             ( 97/C 54/ 16 )
                                                                          — Breach of Article 186 of the EC Treaty and of the
                                                                               obligation to state reasons in that the President ruled,
Appeals against the judgments delivered on 29 February                         on incomprehensible and incorrect grounds, that the
1996 by the Court of First Instance of the European                            interim measures sought in part corresponded exactly
Communities in Cases T-547/93 and T-280/94 Lopes v.                            to the relief sought in the main application and in part
Court of Justice brought on 6 May 1996 ('), signed only                        amounted to a claim for payment in advance of
by Mr Orlando Lopes, accompanied by a certificate of the                       compensation for future and uncertain damage, and
General Council of the Order of Advocates of Portugal,                         thus did not constitute interim measures within the
according to which , although his entry in the register of                     meaning of Article 186 of the EC Treaty,
 ---pagebreak--- No C 54/ 10           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22 . 2 . 97
— breach and/or incorrect application of Article 186 of              Communities on 10 December 1996 by Compagnie
    the EC Treaty in that the President ruled that the               Maritime Beige Transport NV and Compagnie Maritime
    interim measures sought could be granted only on the             Beige NV, represented by Messrs Michel Waelbroeck and
    basis of a definitive assessment of the facts and pleas          Denis Waelbroeck, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
    in law put forward and that the application for those            service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Maitre Ernest
    measures     could   therefore   be   dismissed    without       Arendt, 8-10 rue Mathias Hardt.
    considering the pleas in law and arguments put
    forward by the applicant in justification . Neither the          The appellants claim that the Court should:
    wording of Article 186 of the EC Treaty nor the
    relevant case-law justifies dismissing an application for        — quash the judgment of the CFI,
    interim measures on the sole ground that the interim             — annul the contested decision of the Commission,
    measures sought involve ( in part ) the granting of a
    sum of money (for damages ). The applicant had,                  — alternatively, if the decision of the Commission is
    moreover, . pointed out that under inter alia                          not annulled in its entirety, annul or, at the very
    Netherlands law it is possible in certain circumstances                least, reduce substantially the fine imposed on the
    to grant ( partial ) compensation in interlocutory                     appellants,
    proceedings ( as an interim measure ),
                                                                     — in any event, order the Commission and the
— breach of Article 186, of the obligation to state                        Interveners to pay the costs of the whole procedure .
    reasons and/or of the right to a fair hearing in that the
    President failed to consider whether other appropriate           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    provisional measures might have been granted in order
                                                                     In the present appeal the appellants limit themselves to the
    to protect the applicant's interests,
                                                                     following points, namely:
— breach of Article 186 of the EC Treaty, of the                     — that none of the three alleged abuses which have been
    obligation to state reasons and of the right to a fair                 held against them by both the Commission and the
    hearing in that the President made the order without                   Court of First Instance can be characterized as such,
    allowing the applicant an opportunity to provide
    further clarification of his point of view orally.               — that the Court of First Instance was wrong in rejecting
                                                                           their arguments as to the collective assessment of their
                                                                           dominance,
                                                                     — that, at the very least, the fine should be substantially
                                                                           reduced,
Appeal brought on 10 December 1996 by Compagnie                      — that the appellants ' right to a fair hearing have been
Maritime Beige Transport NV and Compagnie Maritime                         infringed by the Court of First Instance,
Beige NV against the judgment delivered on 8 October
1996 by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of                  — that the Court of First Instance has infringed the
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                    appellants' right to a strict interpretation of criminal
in Joined Cases T-24/93 between Compagnie Maritime                         law provisions .
Beige Transport NV and Compagnie Maritime Beige NV
and the Commission of the European Communities,                      In particular, the present appeal is based on the following
supported by Grimaldi and Cobelfret, T-25 /93 between                grounds :
Dafra Lines A/S and the Commission of the European
Communities, T-26/93 between Deutsche Afrika-Linien                  As to the first alleged abuse consisting in 'participating in
GmbH &C Co . and the Commission of the European                      the implementation of the Ogefrem Agreement and
Communities and T-28/93 between Nedlloyd Lijnen BV                   insisting repeatedly by a variety of means that it be strictly
    and the Commission of the European Communities                   complied with', the Appellants respectfully submit:
                      (Case C-395/96 P)                              ( a ) that the Court of First Instance in its judgment has not
                         ( 97/C 54/18 )                                    based itself on the previous accusations made by the
                                                                           Commission but on an entirely new accusation —
                                                                           never made before by the Commission, and not
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 8 October                      supported by the facts — and by doing so violated
1996 by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of                        their rights of defence and their right to a fair trial;
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
in Joined Cases T-24/93 between Compagnie Maritime                   ( b ) that the judgment of the Court of First Instance is
Beige Transport NV and Compagnie Maritime Beige NV                         further affected by a manifest contradiction in
and the Commission of the European Communities,                            reasoning;
supported by Grimaldi and Cobelfret, T-25/93 between
Dafra Lines A/S and the Commission of the European                   (c ) that in any event, even if the original accusation had
Communities, T-26/93 between Deutsche Afrika-Linien                        not been changed by the Court of First Instance, the
GmbH & Co. and the Commission of the European                              alleged abuse cannot be held against the appellants;
Communities and T-28/93 between Nedlloyd Lijnen BV                         that the Court of First Instance has entirely ignored
and the Commission of the European Communities, was                        the various pleas put forward by the appellants in that
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                        respect .