CELEX: C2000/273/16
Language: en
Date: 2000-09-23 00:00:00
Title: Case C-301/00 P: Appeal brought on 7 August 2000 by Karl Meyer against the judgment delivered on 27 June 2000 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-72/99 between K. Meyer and the Commission of the European Communities

C 273/10               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    23.9.2000
ties on 3 August 2000 by the Commission of the European                   European Communities in Case T-72/99 between K. Meyer
Communities represented by Bernard Mongin, a member of its                and the Commission of the European Communities was
Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in            brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a                   ties on 7 August 2000 by Karl Meyer represented by Jean-
member of the same service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                     Dominique des Arcis, Advocate, with an address for service in
                                                                          Luxembourg at the office of Horst Pakowski, Ambassador of
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                    the Federal Republic of Germany.
the Court should:
                                                                          The appellant claims that the Court should:
1.    Declare that, by failing to implement within the pre-
      scribed period the laws, regulations and administrative             —     uphold his appeal against the judgment handed down
      provisions, including any penalties, necessary to comply                  and dated and declare it to be well founded;
      with Council Directive 98/35/EC of 25 May 1998
      amending Directive 94/58/EC on the minimum level of                 —     overturn that judgment, annul it and determine the
      training for the seafarers (1), the Luxembourg Government                 matter anew as the first instance court should have done;
      has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and
      that directive;                                                     —     order the Commission of the European Communities to
                                                                                pay the costs including those incurred before the Court
2.    Order the Luxembourg Government to pay the costs.                         of First Instance.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
By reason of the mandatory nature of the provisions in Articles           —     Procedural defect:
1(10) and 226(3) EC, the Member States are required to take
the necessary measures to transpose directives into domestic                    The judgment delivered does not contain the slightest
law before expiry of the period prescribed for. The period,                     mention of the wholly irregular manner in which the
which is laid down in Article 2(1), of the directive expired on                 procedure was conducted or of the Commission’s unac-
25 May 1999 without the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg                               ceptable conduct in, after having denied all knowledge of
having adopted the necessary measures.                                          the contested drafts, submitting 20 voluminous docu-
                                                                                ments at the last minute. By its refusal to examine all
(1) OJ L 172 of 17.06.1998, p. 1.                                               aspects of this case, and to collect all the existing
                                                                                documentation before giving its decision, the Court of
                                                                                First Instance manifestly deprived the appellant of his
                                                                                right to defend himself and of legal certainty. The
                                                                                judgment handed down also infringes the principle of the
                                                                                right to a hearing because the Court of First Instance
                                                                                manifestly failed to comply with its obligation of strict
Appeal brought on 7 August 2000 by Karl Meyer against                           impartiality.
the judgment delivered on 27 June 2000 by the Third
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                    —     Confused, biased and contradictory reasoning.
Communities in Case T-72/99 between K. Meyer and the
         Commission of the European Communities                           —     Infringement of general principles of law (the protection
                                                                                of legitimate expectations, the prohibition on retro-
                        (Case C-301/00 P)                                       actively withdrawing or deferring acts which confer rights
                                                                                or benefits on individuals, the rights of the defence and
                         (2000/C 273/16)                                        the right to legal certainty).
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 27 June 2000 by               —     Infringement of higher rules on fundamental rights
the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                         protecting individuals.