CELEX: C2000/163/39
Language: en
Date: 2000-06-10 00:00:00
Title: Case C-149/00 P: Appeal brought on 19 April 2000 by G. Valero Jordana and S. Vadé against the order made on 9 February 2000 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-111/97 between G. Valero Jordana and S. Vadé and the Commission of the European Communities

C 163/22               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     10.6.2000
— The Commission also makes the following criticisms of                 The appellants claim that the Court should:
     France:
                                                                        1. annul the order made on 9 February 2000 by the Court of
     — it calculated by an incorrect method the net cost of                 First Instance in Case T-111/97;
         ‘non-profitable zones’;
                                                                        2. refer the case back to the Court of First Instance in
                                                                            order that that court, having followed the corresponding
     — it did not take account of the intangible benefits
                                                                            procedure, may determine the substance of the action;
         accruing to France Télécom as a result of providing the
         universal service;
                                                                        3. reserve the decision on costs.
     — it infringed the rule that ‘Revenues shall be taken into
         account in calculating the net costs. Costs and revenues       Pleas in law and main arguments
         should be forward-looking’ (Annex III to Directive
         97/33/EC) by refusing to correct the figures forecast
         for 1998 because it would be ‘a delicate matter to             Infringements of the law: the appellants maintain their alle-
         integrate [the methodological progress achieved] in the        gation that the decision of 7 February 1996 (published in the
         definitive evaluation for 1998 having regard to the            Administrative Notices of 27 March 1996) constituted a new
         requirement of a degree of stability in the evaluation         fact justifying the fixing of a new time-limit for contesting the
         methods for a given year.’                                     Commission’s decisions classifying the appellants in grade at
                                                                        the time of their establishment as officials of the Commission.
— Article 5(5), second subparagraph, of Directive 97/33/EC
     has not been completely transposed into French domestic            The appellants further consider that, for the purposes of
     law and, in any event, has not been applied in a compliant         assessing whether their request was submitted within the
     manner by the French authorities as regards the publication        prescribed period, the Commission, and thereafter the Court
     of individual contributions by the operators involved in           of First Instance, should have taken into account the duty
     financing the universal service.                                   incumbent on the Community institutions to have regard for
                                                                        the welfare and interests of officials. The contested order does
                                                                        not deal with that argument put forward by the appellants.
(1) OJ L 192 of 24 July 1990, p. 10.
(2) OJ L 74 of 22.3.1996, p. 13.
(3) OJ L 199 of 26.7.1997, p. 32.
                                                                        Action brought on 19 April 2000 by the Commission
                                                                        of the European Communities against the Republic of
                                                                                                      Austria
                                                                                                 (Case C-150/00)
Appeal brought on 19 April 2000 by G. Valero Jordana                                             (2000/C 163/40)
and S. Vadé against the order made on 9 February 2000
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
European Communities in Case T-111/97 between
                                                                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 April
G. Valero Jordana and S. Vadé and the Commission of the
                                                                        2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                     European Communities
                                                                        represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of its Legal Service,
                                                                        acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                        (Case C-149/00 P)                               the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
                                                                        Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.
                         (2000/C 163/39)
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
An appeal against the order made on 9 February 2000 by the              1. declare that, by classifying vitamin and mineral nutrient
First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European                preparations as medicinal products where they contain
Communities in Case T-111/97 between G. Valero Jordana                      vitamins A, D and K or mineral nutrients of the chromate
and S. Vadé and the Commission of the European Communi-                     group and where they exceed the daily dose or generally,
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                without explaining that, by reason of the addition of extra
Communities on 19 April 2000 by G. Valero Jordana and                       vitamins or because of their vitamin or mineral content,
S. Vadé, represented by C. Amo Quiñones, lawyer, with an                   they constitute a serious risk to health, the Republic of
address for service at 23 Avenue Jacques Pasteur, B-1180                    Austria has infringed its obligations under Article 28 EC
Brussels.                                                                   (formerly Article 30 of the EC Treaty);