CELEX: C2001/061/10
Language: en
Date: 2001-02-24 00:00:00
Title: Case C-472/00 P: Appeal brought on 29 December 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 24 October 2000 by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-178/98 between Fresh Marine Company A/S and the Commission of the European Communities

24.2.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 61/5
Appeal brought on 27 December 2000 by Staff Com-                          of the ECB do not foresee a time-limit within which an action
mittee of the European Central Bank, established in                       should be brought. Thirdly, the Conditions of Employment of
Frankfurt am Main, Germany, Johannes Priesemann, mem-                     the ECB do not require internal procedures to be exhausted
ber of staff of the ECB, residing in Frankfurt am Main,                   prior to the bringing of an action. Lastly, this legal situation is,
Germany, Marc van de Velde, member of staff of the                        in the view of the Appellants, usual for a private law
ECB, residing in Usingen-Kransberg, Germany and Maria                     relationship of the type established by the Conditions of
Concetta Cerafogli, member of staff of the ECB, residing                  Employment of the ECB. There is no need to construct further
in Frankfurt am Main, Germany against the order made                      limitations for actions in the form of time-limits or internal
on 24 October 2000 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court                     procedures.
of First Instance of the European Communities in case
T-27/00 (1) between Staff Committee of the European
Central Bank, Johannes Priesemann, Marc van de Velde                      (1) OJ C 135, 13.5.2000, p. 13.
and Maria Concetta Cerafogli and European Central Bank
                        (Case C-467/00 P)
                          (2001/C 61/09)
                                                                          Appeal brought on 29 December 2000 by the Commission
An appeal against the order made on 24 October 2000 by the                of the European Communities against the judgment deliv-
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European             ered on 24 October 2000 by the Third Chamber, Extended
Communities in case T-27/00 between Staff Committee of the                Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the Euro-
European Central Bank, Johannes Priesemann, Marc van de                   pean Communities in case T-178/98 (1) between Fresh
Velde and Maria Concetta Cerafogli and European Central                   Marine Company A/S and the Commission of the Euro-
Bank, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                                    pean Communities
Communities on 27 December 2000 by Staff Committee of
the European Central Bank, Johannes Priesemann, Marc van                                          (Case C-472/00 P)
de Velde and Maria Concetta Cerafogli, represented by
N. Pflüger, R. Steiner and S. Mittländer, Rechtsanwalte, Frank-
                                                                                                    (2001/C 61/10)
furt am Main, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of A. Schiltz, Association Luxembourgeoise des
Employés de Banque et d’Assurance, 29 Avenue Monterey.                    An appeal against the judgment delivered on 24 October 2000
                                                                          by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of
                                                                          First Instance of the European Communities in case T-178/98
The Appellants claim that:                                                between Fresh Marine A/S and the Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities, was brought before the Court of
1)    the order be annulled and the claims brought in the first           Justice of the European Communities on 29 December 2000
      instance be accepted as founded,                                    by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                          by Viktor Kreuschitz, Legal Adviser, and Sinéad Meany, a
      and if this claim cannot be accepted, demand that                   national civil servant on secondment to the Legal Service of
                                                                          the Commission, acting as agents, assisted by Nicholas Khan,
      the order be annulled in so far as the Court of First               Barrister, of the Bar of England and Wales, with an address for
      Instance dismissed the action as inadmissible and the case          service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
      be referred back to the Court of First Instance of the              Cruz, a member of the Legal Service, Centre Wagner.
      European Communities
                                                                          The Appellant claims that the Court should:
2)    the Respondent be ordered to pay the costs of the appeal
      and the action at the Court of First Instance of the                1.    set aside the judgment, dismiss the Application, and order
      European Communities.                                                     the Respondent to pay the costs, or alternatively,
                                                                          2.    set aside the judgment and refer the case back to the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 Court of First Instance.
The admissibility and timeliness of the action has to be judged
on the basis of Article 236 EC in conjunction with Article                Pleas in law and main arguments
36.2 of the Statute. Article 36.2 of the Statute, in turn, refers
to the conditions of employment. Hence, the application and               It is submitted that the judgment appealed is vitiated by a
interpretation of Article 42 of the Conditions of Employment              number of errors of law and should be set aside and the
of the ECB has to be the basis of the ruling. The Appellants              Application dismissed. It is submitted that the Court of First
hold the view that the Court of First Instance overlooked three           Instance erred in law in the following respects:
aspects of law in this respect: first, Article 42 of the Conditions
of Employment of the ECB provides for access to the Court of              —     In holding that the damage arose from the allegedly
Justice in the case of disputes over collective rights. Second, in              unlawful conduct of the Commission when it examined
the pursuit of collective rights the Conditions of Employment                   the October 1997 report.
 ---pagebreak--- C 61/6                  EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24.2.2001
—    In holding that the jurisprudence characterising anti-             Does that requirement of the system of consumer protection
     dumping measures as legislative acts involving choices of          laid down by the directive that interpretation is to be in
     economic policy concerned cases ‘radically different’ from         conformity require a national court, when hearing an action
     the present case, and in thereby holding that a mere               for payment brought by a seller or supplier against a consumer
     infringement of Community law would suffice to give                with whom he has contracted, to set aside an exceptional
     rise to liability under Article 288 EC.                            procedural rule, such as that in Article L 311-37 of the
                                                                        Consumer Code, in so far as it prohibits the national court,
—    In holding that the October 1997 report prima facie                either on the application of the consumer or of its own
     suggested that the Respondent had complied with its                motion, from annulling any unfair clause which vitiates the
     undertaking and in holding therefore that;                         contract where the latter was made more than two years before
                                                                        the commencement of proceedings and in so far as it thereby
     a)     the Commission’s reaction in amending the report            permits the seller or supplier to rely in law on those clauses
            was disproportionate, and                                   and to base its action upon them?
     b)     the Commission had committed an error which                 (1) OJ L 95, 21.4.1993, p. 29.
            would not have been made had it exercised ordinary
            care and diligence.
—    In holding that the Respondent had shown reasonable
     diligence in mitigating the extent of the damage it had
     claimed to have suffered.                                          Appeal brought on 3 January 2001 by Asia Motor France
                                                                        SA, Jean-Michel Cesbron and Monin Automobiles SA
—    In holding that the Commission unjustifiably delayed in            against the judgment delivered on 26 October 2000 by
     adopting the necessary measures to restore the Respon-             the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
     dent’s undertaking and consequently holding that the               European Communities in Case T-154/98 between Asia
     Commission should bear full responsibility for the                 Motor France SA, Jean-Michel Cesbron and Monin Auto-
     Respondent’s loss of profit as from the end of January             mobiles SA and the Commission of the European Com-
     1998.                                                                                           munities
                                                                                                 (Case C-1/01 P)
(1) OJ C 160, 5.6.1999, p. 21.
                                                                                                 (2001/C 61/12)
                                                                        An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 October 2000
                                                                        by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities in Case T-154/98 between Asia Motor
                                                                        France SA, Jean-Michel Cesbron and Monin Automobiles SA
                                                                        and the Commission of the European Communities was
                                                                        brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d’In-                ties on 3 January 2001 by Asia Motor France SA, Jean-Michel
stance, Vienne, by judgment of that court of 15 December                Cesbron and Monin Automobiles SA, represented by
2000, rectified by a judgment of 26 January 2001, in the                J-C. Fourgoux of the Brussels and Paris Bars, with an address
        case of Codifis SA against Jean Louis Fredout                   for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of P. Schiltz, 4 Rue
                                                                        Béatrix de Bourbon.
                         (Case C-473/00)                                The appellants claim that the Court should:
                                                                        —     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                          (2001/C 61/11)                                      26 October 2000(1);
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  —     annul the Commission’s decision of 14 July 1998, and
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal d’Instance             —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
(District Court), Vienne, of 15 December 2000, received at the
Court Registry on 27 December 2000, and rectified by a
judgment of 26 January 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the            Pleas in law and main arguments
case of Codifis SA v Jean Louis Fredout on the following
question:                                                               —     Infringement of fundamental rights: after dismissing the
                                                                              plea alleging breach of the requirement of a reasonable
                                                                              period [within which the administrative procedure must
Given that the protection under Council Directive 93/13/EEC                   be completed], necessary to ensure fair legal process,
of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1)                     which constitutes a fundamental right, the Court of First
implies that a national court, applying provisions of national                Instance admitted that it was entitled to consider of its
law previous or subsequent to that directive, is to interpret                 own motion the question of infringement of essential
them so far as possible in the light of the wording and purpose               procedural requirements and of the procedural guarantees
of the latter;                                                                conferred by Community law, but decided not to do so.