CELEX: C2000/233/49
Language: en
Date: 2000-08-12 00:00:00
Title: Case C-274/00 P: Appeal brought on 10 July 2000 by Odette Simon against the judgment delivered on 10 May 2000 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Single Judge) in Case T-177/97 Odette Simon v Commission of the European Communities

12.8.2000              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 233/25
2.    Since the Turkish authorities were aware of the inaccuracy       Must Article 5(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on
      of the content of the ATR certificates, which they               Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
      authenticated, is there no possibility of making the             Commercial Matters (OJ 1972 L 299, p. 32), as amended by
      Turkish State liable for payment of the customs debt?            the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the Accession of the
                                                                       Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of
                                                                       Great Britain and Northern Ireland (OJ 1978 L 304, p. 1;
3.    Since the Commission suspected or was aware of the
                                                                       amended version of the Convention at p. 77) and by the
      conduct of the Turkish authorities, referred to in point 2
                                                                       Convention of 25 October 1982 on the Accession of the
      above, was the Commission under a duty to warn the
                                                                       Hellenic Republic (OJ 1982 L 388, p. 1), be interpreted as
      Community operators?
                                                                       meaning that a defendant domiciled in a Contracting State
                                                                       may, in another Contracting State, be sued, in matters relating
4.    Is breach of that possible duty such as to exonerate the         to a contract, in the courts for any of the places of performance
      (customs) declarants from liability where during all those       of the obligation in question, in particular where, consisting in
      years they acted in good faith in respect of the contents        an obligation not to do something — such as, in the present
      of their declarations?                                           case, an undertaking to act exclusively with another party to a
                                                                       contract with a view to submitting a joint tender in connection
                                                                       with a public contract and not to enter into a commitment
5.    Is the decision of the Commission and of the Portuguese          with another partner — that obligation is to be performed in
      customs authorities, on the advice of the former, to             any place whatever in the world?
      proceed to post-clearance recovery of the import duties
      valid without previously putting in motion the procedure
      provided for by Articles 22 and 25 of the EEC/Turkey
      Association Agreement (signed in Brussels on 23 Novem-           If not, may that defendant be sued specifically in the courts for
      ber 1970)?                                                       one of the places of performance of the obligation and, if so,
                                                                       by reference to what criterion must that place be determined?
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
    establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).
                                                                       Appeal brought on 10 July 2000 by Odette Simon against
                                                                       the judgment delivered on 10 May 2000 by the Court of
                                                                       First Instance of the European Communities (Single Judge)
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’Appel,              in Case T-177/97 Odette Simon v Commission of the
Brussels (Fourth Chamber), by judgment of that court of                                   European Communities (1)
19 June 2000 in the case of S.A. Besix NV, formerly called
S.A. Entreprises SBBM and Six Construct v WABAG
Wasserreinigungsbau Alfred Kretzschmar GmbH & Co                                               (Case C-274/00 P)
KG, a company incorporated under German law, and
Planungs- und Forschungsgesellschaft Dipl. Ing. W.
Kretzschmar GmbH & Co KG, a company incorporated                                                (2000/C 233/49)
                       under German law
                                                                       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 10 May 2000 by
                         (Case C-256/00)                               the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                       (Single Judge) in Case T- 177/97 Odette Simon v Commission
                         (2000/C 233/48)                               of the European Communities was brought before the Court
                                                                       of Justice of the European Communities on 10 July 2000 by
                                                                       Odette Simon, represented by J.-N. Louis and Véronique Peere,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
European Communities by a judgment of the Cour d’Appel                 at the offices of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire, 2-4 Rue Beck.
(Court of Appeal), Brussels (Fourth Chamber), of 19 June
2000, which was received at the Court Registry on 28 June
2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of S.A. Besix NV,           The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:
formerly called S.A. Entreprises SBBM and Six Construct v
WABAG Wasserreinigungsbau Alfred Kretzschmar GmbH &
Co KG, a company incorporated under German law, and                    —     Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
Planungs-        und     Forschungsgesellschaft     Dipl.    Ing.            the European Communities (Single Judge) of 10 May
W. Kretzschmar GmbH & Co KG, a company incorporated                          2000 in Case T-177/97 Odette Simon v Commission of
under German law, on the following question:                                 the European Communities;
 ---pagebreak--- C 233/26             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      12.8.2000
—   Annul the Commission decision rejecting the appellant’s           Pleas in law and main arguments
    request that her administrative situation be regularised in
    accordance with the rules and regulations applicable to           By failing to determine whether the contractual conditions
    officials and other servants of the European Communities          imposed on the bodies entrusted with looking after the
    for the period from 15 May 1966 to 25 October 1995;               interests of staff by the High Authority and then by the
                                                                      Commission were in fact decided upon by reference solely to
                                                                      the needs of the service and not in order to evade application
                                                                      for the provisions of the Staff Regulations, the Court of First
—   Declare that the work done by the appellant between
                                                                      Instance erred in law.
    15 May 1966 and 25 October 1995 is to be regarded as
    having been performed under a contract between the                Similarly, it erred by not verifying whether the tasks performed
    Commission and a member of the temporary staff;                   by the appellant within the Information and Coordination
                                                                      Office were of such a nature as to fall within the scope of the
                                                                      permanent Community public service duties entrusted by the
—   Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings           Treaties to the institutions.
    before both the Court of First Instance and the Court of
    Justice.                                                          (1) OJ C 252 of 16 August 1997, p. 4.