CELEX: C2001/245/24
Language: en
Date: 2001-09-01 00:00:00
Title: Case C-263/01 P: Appeal brought on 5 July 2001 by Carla Giulietti against the judgment delivered on 2 May 2001 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-167/99 and T-174/99 between Carla Giulietti and Others and the Commission of the European Communities

1.9.2001                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 245/13
Action brought on 4 July 2001 by the European Parlia-                    —     Failure by the Council to fulfil its duty of sincere
     ment against the Council of the European Union                            cooperation, as guaranteed by Article 10 EC: the Council
                                                                               adopted an implementing act before the relevant basic
                                                                               act had been adopted by the competent institutions.
                          (Case C-260/01)                                      When the Council adopted its decision, that is to say, on
                                                                               19 March 2001, the legislative procedure leading to the
                          (2001/C 245/23)                                      adoption of the act provided for in Article 255(2) EC was
                                                                               already at a very advanced stage. The Council makes no
                                                                               mention in the contested decision of any urgent reasons
An action against the Council of the European Union was                        justifying its approach. Nor did it ever indicate to the
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                   Parliament any urgency in connection with the adoption
ties on 4 July 2001 by the European Parliament, represented                    of its security regulation.
by R. Passos and A. Caiola, acting as Agents, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.                                               —     Breach of the principle of institutional balance.
The European Parliament claims that the Court should:
—     annul, pursuant to Article 230 EC, Council Decision
      2001/264/EC of 19 March 2001 adopting the Council’s
      security regulations.                                              Appeal brought on 5 July 2001 by Carla Giulietti against
                                                                         the judgment delivered on 2 May 2001 by the Second
                                                                         Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Communities in Joined Cases T-167/99 and T-174/99
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          between Carla Giulietti and Others and the Commission
                                                                                          of the European Communities
—     Infringement of the EC Treaty, and in particiular
      Article 255 thereof: it is clear on reading Articles 255 EC                                (Case C-263/01 P)
      and 207 EC that the act of the Council mentioned in
      Article 207 must be consistent with the general principles                                  (2001/C 245/24)
      and limits laid down in the basic act referred to in
      Article 255(2) EC. It is of fundamental importance that
      the heirarchical order of these provisions is complied             An appeal against the judgment delivered on 2 May 2001 by
      with in full by the Parliament, the Council and the                the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
      Commission if acts adopted jointly pursuant to                     European Comunities in Joined Cases T-167/99 and T-174/99
      Article 255(2) EC are to be effective. The act pursuant to         between Carla Giulietti and Others and the Commission of the
      the codecision procedure must be adopted first. Only               European Communities was brought before the Court of
      then will the three institutions be in a position to lay           Justice of the European Communities on 5 July 2001 by Carla
      down their own specific provisions governing the public’s          Giulietti, represented by S. Diana, with an address for service
      right of access to their documents. The basic act in               in Brussels.
      question, namely Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the
      European Parliament and the Council regarding public
      access to European Parliament, Council and Commission              The appellant claims that the Court should:
      documents, was adopted on 30 May 2001. Whilst the
      European Parliament and the Commission followed the                —     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
      order prescribed by Article 255 EC, the Council, in                      2 May 2001 in Joined Cases T-167/99 and T-174/99;
      infringement thereof, did not, and on 19 March 2001
      adopted Decision 2001/264.                                         —     order the European Commission to pay the cost.
—     Breach of essential procedural requirements: it is clear
      from the express purpose and content of Decision                   Pleas in law and main arguments
      2001/264/EC that it deals with matters going beyond the
      internal operations of the Council. It has in fact created         —     Infringement of the rights of the defence:
      legal obligations on the part of the Member States and
      Community satellite organisations. In order to do that,
      the Council ought not to have availed itself of the                      The appellant was only informed at the end of the written
      provisions of Article 207(3) EC and Article 24 of Council                procedure before the Court of First Instance as to how
      Decision 2000/396/EC of 5 June 2000, but should                          the group of 250 candidates retained for the tests was
      instead have had recourse to a different legal basis                     broken down as between the two spheres of activity
      allowing, in any event, for the initiative of the Com-                   covered by the competition. She was not informed of
      mission and the involvement of the European Parliament                   how many candidates had initially chosen each sphere of
      in the legislative procedure, such as Article 255 EC and/or              activity. The appellant was thus unable to prove inequality
      Article 308 EC. By its actions, the Council has thwarted a               of treatment between candidates on the part of the
      prerogative power of the European Parliament.                            selection board.
 ---pagebreak--- C 245/14              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        1.9.2001
—    Infringement of the principle of equal treatment:                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
     The Court of First Instance failed to draw all the logical         (a)   Declare that,
     consequences from the selection board’s decision to
     delete certain questions and to take no account of the                   —     by failing to adopt all the provisions necessary so
     answers given to them.                                                         that the quality of bathing water conformed to the
                                                                                    values limits set down in Article 3 of the directive;
                                                                              —     by failing to take samples at the minimum frequency
                                                                                    laid down in the annex to the directive;
Reference for a preliminary ruling, by the Tribunal de                        —     by failing to identify all the inshore bathing areas in
Grande Instance de Dinan, by judgment of that court of                              Portugal,
28 June 2001, in the case of Ministère Public — partie
civile: Comité Région pêches maritimes against Annie
       Pansard, Gérard Bourret and Marc Kermarrec                             the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                              under Directive 76/160/EEC (1) in particular as provided
                                                                              for in Article 4(1), in conjunction with Article 3, the
                       (Case C-265/01)                                        annex to the directive and with Article 1(2) and those
                                                                              provided for in Article 6(1) and (2);
                       (2001/C 245/25)
                                                                        (b) Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communites by judgment of the Tribunal de Grande
Instance de Dinan of 28 June 2001, received at the Court
Registry on 5 July 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Ministère Public — partie civile: Comite Region pêches               Pleas in law and main arguments
maritimes against Annie Pansard, Gérard Bourret and Marc
Kermarrec on the following questions:
                                                                        Although a derogation was granted under Article 395 of and
—    Can scallops caught from vessels registered in France (at          Point II-3 of Annex XXXVI to the Act of Accession of Spain
     Saint-Brieuc and Saint-Malo) in the waters of Jersey (the          and Portugal to the European Economic Community until
     Minkies) under licence issued by the Jersey authorities            31 December 1992, the level of non-conformity with the
     authorising fishing by diving be regarded as imported              mandatory values set down in the directive was, for the 2000
     products, in spite of the French legislation which applies         bathing season, 7.8 % for coastal bathing areas and 31 % for
     to fish catches the law of the flag of the fishing vessel?         inland bathing areas, which was even a decrease in conformity
                                                                        by comparison with the 1999 season.
—    Is the validity of the Order of 19 March 1980, which
     prohibits the unloading of scallops during their close
     season, affected by the provisions of the Treaty of
                                                                        Furthermore, the Portuguese authorities have still not identified
     Maastricht, which prohibit measures having an effect
                                                                        all the inland bathing areas. There is a discrepancy between
     equivalent to quantitative restrictions on imports?
                                                                        the number of inland bathing areas identified (26) and the
                                                                        number of ‘riverside beaches’, as described by the Portuguese
                                                                        authorities, eligible for Community funds (91).
                                                                        Although there has been 100 % sampling in Portugal in both
Action brought on 10 July 2001 by the Commission                        coastal bathing areas and inshore bathing areas, that percentage
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                      is only in respect of the bathing areas which have been
                           Republic                                     identified. Thus, by failing to comply with the minimum
                                                                        frequency of sampling operations because an insufficient
                                                                        number of inshore bathing areas have been identified, the
                       (Case C-272/01)                                  Portuguese Republic has failed to comply with its obligations
                                                                        under Article 6(1) and (2) of the directive.
                       (2001/C 245/26)
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before            (1) Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 July                 the quality of bathing water (OJ 1976 L 31, p. 1).
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Teresa Figueira and Gregorio Valero Jordana,
acting as Agents.