CELEX: C2003/124/24
Language: en
Date: 2003-05-24 00:00:00
Title: Case C-154/03: Action brought on 3 April 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland

C 124/14                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                            24.5.2003
T-377/00 (1), T-379/00 (2), T-380/00 ( 2), T-260/01 (3) and                     —      failing to consider that the contested acts produced
T-272/01 (4) between Philip Morris International, Inc.,                                legal effects through the mere fact that they deprived
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings, Inc., RJR Acquisition Corp.,                           the Appellant of certain legal protections and advan-
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco                                   tages within the Community legal order;
International Inc., and Japan Tobacco, Inc., and Commission
of the European Communities, supported by European Parlia-                      —      considering that case C-345/00 P, FNAB, can be
ment, Kingdom of Spain, French Republic, Italian Republic,                             applied to the instant case;
Portuguese Republic, Republic of Finland, Federal Republic of
Germany, Hellenic Republic, Kingdom of the Netherlands,
                                                                                —      failing to consider that the contested acts are open
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                                       to judicial review since they are manifestly illegal;
Communities on 31 March 2003 by Philip Morris Inter-                                   and finally
national, Inc., established in Rye Brook, New York (United
States), represented by E. Morgan de Rivery and F. Marchini
Camia, lawyers.                                                                 —      as a first alternative, if the Court of First Instance’s
                                                                                       reasoning is correct (quod non) that only the
                                                                                       decision of the US District Court of the Eastern
                                                                                       district of New York produces legal effects, then the
The Appellant claims that the Court should:                                            Court of First Instance erred in law by considering,
                                                                                       notwithstanding the circumstances of the case, that
                                                                                       the contested acts cannot be reviewed under
—     annul the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                             Article 230 EC;
      15 January 2003 in joined cases T-377/00, T-379/00,
      T-380/00, T-260/01 and T-272/01; and                                      —      as a second alternative, if the Court of First Instance’s
                                                                                       reasoning is correct (quod non) that it is not possible
                                                                                       to separately review a decision to initiate a law suit,
—     give final judgment on the issue of admissibility, pursuant                      it should have joined the question of admissibility
      to Article 61 of the Protocol on the Statutes of the                             to the substance.
      Court of Justice, by declaring the Appellant’s actions for
      annulment admissible and refer the case back to the
                                                                          2)    The Court of First Instance contradicted itself on an
      Court of First Instance for examination of the substance
                                                                                essential point of law.
      of the case; or
                                                                          3)    The Court of First Instance violated Article 292 EC.
—     failing that, refer the case back to the Court of First
      Instance for judgment on the admissibility issue and                4)    The Court of First Instance violated the right to effective
      subsequently and/or simultaneously on the substance of                    judicial protection.
      the case; and
                                                                          (1 ) OJ C 79, 10.3.2001, p. 23.
—     order the Commission to pay the Appellant’s costs before            (2 ) OJ C 79, 10.3.2001, p. 24.
      the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice.               (3 ) OJ C 3, 5.1.2002, p. 39.
                                                                          (4 ) OJ C 3, 5.1.2002, p. 45.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Appellant contends that, in the contested judgment, the
Court of First Instance made the following errors of law:                 Action brought on 3 April 2003 by the Commission of
                                                                                    the European Communities against Ireland
1)    The Court of First Instance violated the concept of a
      challengeable act under Article 230 EC by:                                                      (Case C-154/03)
                                                                                                      (2003/C 124/24)
      —     considering that bringing proceedings on the basis
            of the contested acts is comparable to bringing
            proceedings under Article 226 EC;
                                                                          An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
      —     considering that the admitted lack of competence to           Justice of the European Communities on 3 April 2003 by the
            adopt the contested acts and the subsequent creation          Commission of the European Communities, represented by
            and exercise of such competence do not alter the              Karen Banks, acting as agent, with an address for service in
            legal position of the parties to the case;                    Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 24.5.2003                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 124/15
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                                     —    call for applications for the position of Secretary to
                                                                                     the General Administration. Ref.: 03/EJ/14 (2003/
1)    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                        C 34 A/08) OJ C 34 A of 13.2.2003;
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Council Directive 1999/36/EC of 29 April 1999 on
      transportable pressure equipment ( 1) and Commission                      —    call for applications for the position of Librarian/
      Directive 2001/2/EC of 4 January 2001 adapting the                             Archivist. Ref.: 03/EJ/12 (2003/C 34 A/06) OJ C 34
      latter directive to technical progress ( 2), or in any event                   A of 13.2.2003;
      by failing to notify those provisions to it, Ireland has
      failed to fulfil its obligations under the Directives;
                                                                                —    call for applications for the position of Accounting
2)    order Ireland to pay the costs of this action.
                                                                                     officer. Ref.: 03/EJ/08 (2003/C 34 A/02) OJ C 34 A
                                                                                     of 13.2.2003;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                —    call for applications for the position of IT-informa-
                                                                                     tics expert (webmaster) of the European judicial
Article 249 EC, under which a directive shall be binding, as to
                                                                                     network. Ref.: 03/EJ/09 (2003/C 34 A/03) OJ C 34
the result to be achieved, upon each Member State, carries by                        A of 13.2.2003,
implication an obligation on the Member States to observe the
period for compliance laid down in the directive. That period
expired on 1 December 2000 and 1 July 2001 respectively                         the paragraph referring to the documents to be submitted
without Ireland having enacted the provisions necessary to                      in English by applicants submitting their application in
comply with the directives referred to in the conclusions of                    another language; and the paragraphs relating to the
the Commission.                                                                 linguistic knowledge required of candidates, from each of
                                                                                the calls for applications set out below:
( 1) OJ L 138, 1.6.1999, p. 20.
( 2) OJ L 005, 10.1.2001, p. 4.
                                                                                —    in the call for applications for the position of Data-
                                                                                     protection officer, as condition No 17: ‘Excellent
                                                                                     knowledge of English and French. Ability to work in
                                                                                     other European Union languages would be an asset’.
Action brought on 8 April 2003 by the Kingdom of Spain                          —    in the call for applications for the position of Law
                           against Eurojust                                          officer, as condition No 19: ‘Excellent knowledge of
                                                                                     English and French. Ability to work in other Euro-
                           (Case C-160/03)                                           pean Union languages would be an asset’.
                           (2003/C 124/25)
                                                                                —    in the call for applications for the position of Press
                                                                                     officer, as condition No 12: ‘Ability to speak at least
                                                                                     English and French. Knowledge of other official
An action against Eurojust was brought before the Court of                           European Union languages would be an asset’.
Justice of the European Communities on 8 April 2003 by the
Kingdom of Spain, represented by L. Fraguas Gadea, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.                                              —    in the call for applications for the position of
                                                                                     Secretary to the General Administration, as con-
                                                                                     dition No 9: ‘Thorough knowledge of English and
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                     French would be an asset, as well as a satisfactory
                                                                                     knowledge of other Community languages’.
1.    annul, in the following calls for applications:
      —     call for applications for the position of Data-
            protection officer. Ref.: 03/EJ/07 (2003/C 34 A/01)                 —    in the call for applications for the position of IT-
            OJ C 34 A of 13.2.2003;                                                  informatics expert (webmaster) of the European
                                                                                     judicial network, as condition No 6: ‘Good know-
      —     call for applications for the position of Legal officer.                 ledge of English is essential; in particular, the ability
            Ref.: 03/EJ/11 (2003/C 34 A/05) OJ C 34 A of                             to speak at least two additional official European
            13.2.2003;                                                               Community languages, including French, would be
                                                                                     an asset’.
      —     call for applications for the position of Press officer.
            Ref.: 03/EJ/13 (2003/C 34 A/07) OJ C 34 A of
            13.2.2003;                                                     2.   order the defendant body to pay the costs.