CELEX: C2000/335/63
Language: en
Date: 2000-11-25 00:00:00
Title: Case C-345/00 P: Appeal brought on 19 September 2000 by the Fédération Nationale d'Agriculture Biologique des Régions de France (FNAB), the Syndicat Européen des Transformateurs de Distributeurs de Produits de l'Agriculture Biologique (SETRAB) and Sàrl Est Distribution Biogam against the order delivered on 11 July 2000 by the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) in Case T-268/99 between the Fédération Nationale d'Agriculture Biologique des Régions de France (FNAB), the Syndicat Européen des Transformateurs et Distributeurs de Produits de l'Agriculture Biologique and Sàrl Est Distribution Biogam and the Council of the European Union

C 335/36              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   25.11.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              law in finding that the AECC had not committed a
                                                                             manifest error of assessment or misused its powers by
The pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those in                   not considering the applicant’s application and in not
Case C-335/00 (2); the period for transposition laid down by                 declaring that the contested decision was manifestly
Article 2 of the Directive expired on 30 June 1999.                          vitiated by an inadequate statement of reasons.
(1) OJ L 318, 27.11.1998, p. 43.                                       —     Error in law: the Court of First Instance committed an
(2) OJ C ...                                                                 error in law by considering that the applicant had not
                                                                             lodged within the time-limits a complaint against the
                                                                             decision not to renew his contract as a temporary
                                                                             member of staff beyond 30 June 1998. A definitive and
                                                                             unambiguous decision to that effect is not to be found in
                                                                             the letter from the Director of CEDEFOP of 25 May 1998
                                                                             but in the letter of 3 June 1998 which is based on a
Appeal brought on 18 September 2000 by Michel Hend-                          reexamination of the applicant’s legal situation in the
rickx against the judgment delivered on 13 July 2000 by                      light of a new fact, namely the report of the chairperson
the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                      of the selection committee.
European Communities in Case T-87/99 between Michel
Hendrickx and European Centre for the Development of
                      Vocational Training
                       (Case C-344/00 P)
                        (2000/C 335/62)
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 July 2000 by
the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-87/99 between Michel
Hendrickx and European Centre for the Development of
Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) was brought before the Court
of Justice of the European Communities on 18 September                 Appeal brought on 19 September 2000 by the Fédération
2000 by Michel Hendrickx, represented by Jean-Nöel Louis and           Nationale d’Agriculture Biologique des Régions de France
Véronique Peere, with an address for service in Luxembourg at          (FNAB), the Syndicat Européen des Transformateurs de
the offices of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire s.à.r.l., 13 Avenue       Distributeurs de Produits de l’Agriculture Biologique
du Bois.                                                               (SETRAB) and Sàrl Est Distribution Biogam against the
                                                                       order delivered on 11 July 2000 by the Court of First
The appellant claims that the Court should:                            Instance (Third Chamber) in Case T-268/99 between
                                                                       the Fédération Nationale d’Agriculture Biologique des
—     annul the decision by CEDEFOP rejecting the applicant’s          Régions de France (FNAB), the Syndicat Européen des
      application for the post of Head of General Support              Transformateurs et Distributeurs de Produits de l’Agricul-
      Services (Administration);                                       ture Biologique and Sàrl Est Distribution Biogam and the
                                                                                       Council of the European Union
—     annul the decision not to renew the applicant’s contract
      as a member of the temporary staff contract beyond
      30 June 1998;
                                                                                               (Case C-345/00 P)
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas and main arguments                                                                        (2000/C 335/63)
—     Error in law: the Court of First Instance committed an
      error in law by considering that the authority empowered
      to conclude contracts of employment (AECC) had not               An appeal against the order delivered on 11 July 2000 by the
      committed a manifest error of assessment or misused its          Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
      powers by not considering the applicant for the post of          Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
      Head of General Support Services (Administration) on             the European Communities on 19 September 2000 by the
      the ground that he ‘... has not obtained the minimum             Fédération Nationale d’Agriculture Biologique des Régions de
      requisite number of points’. The Court committed an              France (FNAB), the Syndicat Européen des Transformateurs et
      error of assessment by not verifying the lawfulness of the       Distributeurs de Produits de l’Agriculture Biologique (SETRAB)
      work of the selection committee and, in particular, of the       and Sàrl Est Distribution Biogam, represented by Dirk Leer-
      decision to set a minimum of 70 % of the points in               makers, of the Brussels and Luxembourg Bars, and Catriona
      the view of the binding nature of vacancy/competition            Hatton, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg
      notices. In those circumstances, it committed an error in        at 5 Place du Théâtre.
 ---pagebreak--- 25.11.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 335/37
The appellants claim that the Court should:                               Communities on 20 September 2000 by the United Kingdom,
                                                                          represented by Mrs Rachel Magrill, of the Treasury Solicitor’s
—     annul the order of the Court of First Instance of 11 July           Department, acting as Agent, assisted by Mr Peter Roth QC, of
      2000;                                                               the Bar of England and Wales, with an address for service in
                                                                          Luxembourg at the British Embassy, 14 boulevard Roosevelt.
—     declare that the appellants have locus standi to initiate
      proceedings for the partial annulment of Council Regu-
      lation No 1804/99 of 19 July 1999 (1);                              The Applicant claims that the Court should order that:
and, accordingly,
                                                                          1)     Commission Decision 2000/449/EC (1) should be
—     grant the appellants leave to rely on their previous written               annulled to the extent that it excludes expenditure of the
      submissions;                                                               UK paying agencies in the total amount of
                                                                                 EUR 5 039 175,46 / £ 2 919 698,26 in respect of arable
—     grant the other parties leave to present argument on the                   crops for the financial years 1996 and 1997;
      substance of the case;
—     order the Council to bear all the costs of the proceedings          2)     the Commission should pay the costs of the United
      at first instance and of the present appeal.                               Kingdom.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments:
—     Infringement of Article 230 EC: the Court of First Instance
      erred in refusing to recognise that the derogation inserted
      into Article 5(3a) of Council Regulation No 2092/91 (2)
      by Regulation No 1804/99 was in the nature of a                     The United Kingdom submits that:
      decision. The derogation in issue is contrary to the spirit
      of the regulation and to the positions previously taken by
      the Community. The circumstances of its adoption                    a)     the Decision was unlawful as there was no basis for
      confirm that it serves to protect individual interests,                    concluding that expenditure was not effected in com-
      namely those of Danone, the only major company                             pliance with Community rules within the first paragraph
      concerned.                                                                 of Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation 729/70 (2);
—     Infringement of Article 230 EC: the Court of First Instance
      erred in holding that the applicants are not individually           b)     alternatively, if the system of supervision was inadequate,
      concerned, when their competitive position is under-                       the determination of the amount excluded was in breach
      mined owing to the adoption of the derogation in issue.                    of the fourth paragraph of Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation
                                                                                 729/70 and/or was manifestly incorrect;
(1) OJ L 222, p. 1.
(2) Regulation on organic production of agricultural products and         c)     the application of a 2 per cent flat-rate deduction for
    indications referring thereto on agricultural products and food-             1995 and 1996 breaches the principle of proportionality;
    stuffs, OJ L 198, p. 1.
                                                                          d)     the Decision is vitiated by breach of essential procedural
                                                                                 requirements.
Action brought on 20 September 2000 by the United                         (1) Commission Decision of 5 July 2000 excluding from Community
Kingdom against the Commission of the European Com-                           financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under
                                                                              the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and
                               munities                                       Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ L 180, 19.07.2000, p. 49).
                                                                          (2) Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of the Council of 21 April 1970 on
                            (Case C-346/00)                                   the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ L 94,
                                                                              28.04.70, p. 13 [SE SER1 70(1) p. 218]).
                           (2000/C 335/64)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European