CELEX: C2003/146/50
Language: en
Date: 2003-06-21 00:00:00
Title: Case C-160/03: Action brought on 8 April 2003 by Kingdom of Spain against Eurojust

C 146/30                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                        21.6.2003
       The Court of First Instance’s assessment in the contested            The applicant claims that the Court should:
       judgment relates exclusively to the Commission decision
       of 1996, although this decision is manifestly not the
       instrument contested at first instance.                              1.   annul, in the following calls for applications:
       It is clear that Article 12 of Directive 75/319, on which
       the 1996 decision is based, and which is examined by the                  —    call for applications for the position of Data-
       Court of First Instance, is not the legal basis for the 2000                   protection officer. Ref.: 03/EJ/07 (2003/C 34 A/01)
       decision.                                                                      OJ C 34 A of 13.2.2003;
       Moreover, Article 12 is essentially assessed by way of a
       comparison with Article 10(2) of Directive 75/319,
                                                                                 —    call for applications for the position of Legal officer.
       although the latter does not form the legal basis for the
                                                                                      Ref.: 03/EJ/11 (2003/C 34 A/05) OJ C 34 A of
       2000 decision either, or of the 1996 decision, examined
                                                                                      13.2.2003;
       by the Court of First Instance.
       Thus, the Court of First Instance’s conclusion that the
       Commission was not competent to adopt the 2000                            —    call for applications for the position of Press officer.
       decision is based on an assessment relating to a decision                      Ref.: 03/EJ/13 (2003/C 34 A/07) OJ C 34 A of
       which was not contested at first instance and is founded                       13.2.2003;
       essentially on provisions, namely Articles 10 and 12 of
       Directive 75/319, which do not form the legal basis for
       the 2000 decision. In the appellant’s view, this assessment               —    call for applications for the position of Secretary to
       constitutes in itself a failure to define the status of                        the General Administration. Ref.: 03/EJ/14 (2003/
       Article 15a(1) of Directive 75/319 and thus a failure to                       C 34 A/08) OJ C 34 A of 13.2.2003;
       take account of it.
       In the appellant’s view, the two errors described above                   —    call for applications for the position of Librarian/
       are fundamental and linked to the extent that they vitiate                     Archivist. Ref.: 03/EJ/12 (2003/C 34 A/06) OJ C 34
       the entire legal assessment leading the Court of First                         A of 13.2.2003;
       Instance to deduce that the Commission was not com-
       petent to adopt the 2000 decision.
                                                                                 —    call for applications for the position of Accounting
       Lastly, and solely in the alternative, the appellant main-                     officer. Ref.: 03/EJ/08 (2003/C 34 A/02) OJ C 34 A
       tains that the Court of First Instance’s reasoning to the                      of 13.2.2003;
       effect that Article 15a of Directive 75/319 does not cover
       marketing authorisations harmonised by way of the
       purely consultative procedure within the meaning of                       —    call for applications for the position of IT-informat-
       Articles 12 and 13 of the directive also constitutes a                         ics expert (webmaster) of the European judicial
       misinterpretation of that article.                                             network. Ref.: 03/EJ/09 (2003/C 34 A/03) OJ C 34 A
                                                                                      of 13.2.2003,
( 1) OJ C 247, 26.8.2000, p. 29.
( 2) Second Council Directive 75/319/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the
     approximation of provisions laid down by Law, Regulation or                 the paragraph referring to the documents to be submitted
     Administrative Action relating to proprietary medicinal products            in English by applicants submitting their application in
     (OJ L 147, 9.6.1975, p. 13).                                                another language; and the paragraphs relating to the
                                                                                 linguistic knowledge required of candidates, from each of
                                                                                 the calls for applications set out below:
                                                                                 —    in the call for applications for the position of Data-
                                                                                      protection officer, as condition No 17: ‘Excellent
Action brought on 8 April 2003 by Kingdom of Spain                                    knowledge of English and French. Ability to work in
                          against Eurojust                                            other European Union languages would be an asset’.
                          (Case C-160/03)                                        —    in the call for applications for the position of Law
                                                                                      officer, as condition No 19: ‘Excellent knowledge of
                          (2003/C 146/50)                                             English and French. Ability to work in other Euro-
                                                                                      pean Union languages would be an asset’.
An action against Eurojust was brought before the Court of                       —    in the call for applications for the position of Press
Justice of the European Communities on 8 April 2003 by the                            officer, as condition No 12: ‘Ability to speak at least
Kingdom of Spain, represented by L. Fraguas Gadea, with an                            English and French. Knowledge of other official
address for service in Luxembourg.                                                    European Union languages would be an asset’.
 ---pagebreak--- 21.6.2003                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 146/31
      —     in the call for applications for the position of               Action brought on 9 April 2003 by the Commission
            Secretary to the General Administration, as con-               of the European Communities against the Republic of
            dition No 9: ‘Thorough knowledge of English and                                               Austria
            French would be an asset, as well as a satisfactory
            knowledge of other Community languages’.
                                                                                                    (Case C-164/03)
      —     in the call for applications for the position of IT-
            informatics expert (webmaster) of the European
            judicial network, as condition No 6: ‘Good know-                                        (2003/C 146/51)
            ledge of English is essential; in particular, the ability
            to speak at least two additional official European
            Community languages, including French, would be
            an asset’.
                                                                           An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before
2.    order the defendant body to pay the costs.                           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 April
                                                                           2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by Dr Ulrich Wölker, Commission Legal Adviser,
                                                                           and Florence Simonetti, a national civil servant available to the
                                                                           Commission Legal Service under an exchange scheme, with an
                                                                           address for service in Luxembourg.
Pleas in law and main arguments
—     Breach of the Staff Regulations and of the Conditions
      of Employment of Other Servants of the European                      The Commission claims that the Court should:
      Communities
                                                                           1.    declare that, by failing to adopt, or to communicate to
      According to Article 30 of Council Decision 2002/                          the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative
      187/JHA of 28 February 2002 establishing Eurojust to                       provisions necessary in order to implement Council
      strengthen the fight against serious forms of crime ( 1),                  Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive
      Eurojust staff are to be subject to the rules and regulations              85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain
      applicable to the officials and other servants of the                      public and private projects on the environment (1) in the
      European Communities.                                                      provinces of Burgenland and Salzburg, the Republic of
                                                                                 Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
      Under Article 12 of the Conditions of Employment,                          directive;
      candidates are only required to have a thorough know-
      ledge of one language and a satisfactory knowledge of
      another.                                                             2.    order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
—     Breach of the linguistic rules of Eurojust
      Article 31 of Council Decision 2002/187/JHA provides
      that the official linguistic arrangements of the Union are           Pleas in law and main arguments
      to apply to Eurojust proceedings. No provision of the
      decision expressly states that the working languages of
      Eurojust are to be English and French.
                                                                           In accordance with the third paragraph of Article 249 EC,
                                                                           which provides that a directive is binding as to the result to be
—     Breach of the principle of non-discrimination                        achieved upon each Member State, the Member States are
                                                                           obliged to comply with the time-limit for implementation laid
      The requirement that part of the documents to be                     down in directives. The period for implementation laid down
      submitted should be drawn up in English and, most of                 in Article 3(1) of Directive 97/11/EC expired on 14 March
      all, the requirement of excellent knowledge of English               1999 without the Republic of Austria having adopted the
      and French amounts to clear discrimination grounds of                necessary provisions for the provinces of Burgenland and
      nationality, prohibited by Article 12 EC.                            Salzburg.
( 1) OJ 2002 L 63, p. 1.                                                   (1 ) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.