CELEX: C2001/150/27
Language: en
Date: 2001-05-19 00:00:00
Title: Case C-121/01 P: Appeal brought on 19 March 2001 by Eoghan O'Hannrachain against the judgment delivered on 16 January 2001 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-97/99 and T-99/99 between M. Chamier and E. O'Hannrachain and the European Parliament

C 150/14               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       19.5.2001
Action brought on 16 March 2001 by the Commission of                  Appeal brought on 19 March 2001 by Eoghan O’Hannra-
         the European Communities against Ireland                     chain against the judgment delivered on 16 January 2001
                                                                      by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                      European Communities in Joined Cases T-97/99 and T-
                                                                      99/99 between M. Chamier and E. O’Hannrachain and the
                         (Case C-120/01)                                                      European Parliament
                                                                                               (Case C-121/01 P)
                         (2001/C 150/26)
                                                                                                (2001/C 150/27)
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of             An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 January 2001
Justice of the European Communities on 16 March 2001 by               by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
the Commission of the European Communities, represented               European Communities in Joined Cases T-97/99 and T-99/99
by Mr Richard Wainwright, acting as agent, with an address            between M. Chamier and E. O’Hannrachain and the European
for service in Luxembourg.                                            Parliament was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      European Communities on 19 March 2001 by E. O’Hannra-
                                                                      chain, represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, of the
                                                                      Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Brussels.
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                      The appellant claims that the Court should:
—     declare that, by failing by 16 September 1999 to prepare        —     set aside the judgment delivered on 16 January 2001 by
      and communicate to the Commission the plans, outlines                 the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the EC
      and summaries required pursuant to Article 11 and                     in Joined Cases T-97/99 and T-99/99;
      Article 4(1) of Council Directive 96/59/EC (1) on the
      disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinat-              —     consequently, grant the appellant the relief sought
      ed terphenyls (PCB/PCT), Ireland has failed to fulfil its                   by him in the proceedings at first instance, and thus:
      obligations under that Directive;
                                                                            —     annul the appointing authority’s decision of 16 July
                                                                                  1998 appointing Mr. L.V. to the post of Director-
—     order Ireland to pay the costs.                                             General of the Directorate-General for Finance and
                                                                                  Financial Control and the decision of the same date
                                                                                  rejecting the appellant’s application for the post and,
                                                                                  in so far as may be necessary, annul the decision
                                                                                  adopted on 21 January 1999 rejecting the appellant’s
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                   complaint;
                                                                            —     order the respondent to pay damages estimated to
                                                                                  amount, on a fair and equitable basis, to
Article 11 of the Directive requires Member States to draw up                     100 000 euro;
plans and outlines in connection with the decontamination or
disposal of equipment containing polychlorinated biphenyls            —     order the respondent to pay the costs.
(PCBs), and to communicate these plans and outlines to the
Commission. Article 4(1) obliges Member States to compile
inventories of equipment with certain PCB volumes and to
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments
send summaries of such inventories to the Commission.
                                                                      —     Infringement of Article 29 of the Staff Regulations of
                                                                            officials: the Court of First Instance misconstrued
To date Ireland has not communicated such plans, outlines                   Article 29 of the Staff Regulations by taking the view that
and summaries to the Commission, nor is the Commission in                   the appointing authority may have recourse to the
possession of any other information enabling it to conclude                 procedure referred to in Article 29(2) of the Staff
that Ireland has prepared these plans, outlines and summaries.              Regulations after initiating a recruitment procedure under
                                                                            Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations without first
                                                                            carrying out an examination of the comparative merits of
                                                                            the eligible candidates under Article 29(1) with a view to
(1) OJ L 243, 24.09.1996, p. 31.                                            verifying whether they meet the requirements of the
                                                                            notice of vacancy. By acting in that way, the appointing
                                                                            authority failed to examine whether, in the present case
                                                                            and in accordance with Article 29 of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                            the promotion/transfer procedure was likely to result in
                                                                            the appointment of a person possessing the highest levels
                                                                            of ability, efficiency and integrity.
 ---pagebreak--- 19.5.2001             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 150/15
—     Disregard of the principle of legality, of the duty to give a      Action brought on 19 March 2001 by the Commission of
      statement of reasons and of the audi alteram partem rule,          the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
      on account of the acceptance of documents drawn up
      after the adoption of the contested decision.
—     Failure to have regard to the obligation to provide a                                        (Case C-127/01)
      statement of reasons and violation of the effects attaching
      to a vacancy notice: the factual assessment carried out by
      the Court of First Instance concerning the qualifications
      and experience of Mr L.V. results in an error of law                                         (2001/C 150/29)
      consisting of the attribution to him of qualifications
      corresponding to the requirements of the vacancy notice.
      Thus, the Court of First Instance disregarded the effects          An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
      arising from a notice of vacancy.                                  the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 March
                                                                         2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
—     Failure to have regard to the notion of misuse of powers.          represented by Marie Wolfcarius, Legal Adviser, and Maria
                                                                         Patakia, of its Legal Service.
—     Failure to have regard to Articles 7 and 27 of the Staff
      Regulations and to the principle of non-discrimination:
      since Mr L.V. did not possess the appropriate qualifi-
      cations, he was in any event incapable of being compared           The Commission claims that the Court should:
      with other candidates who did.
—     Failure to have regard to the principle of sound manage-           —     declare that, by failing to adopt and to notify to the
      ment and proper administration, and breach of the                        Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the laws,
      obligation to provide a statement of reasons.                            regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                               comply fully with Council Directive 98/76/EC of 1 Octo-
                                                                               ber 1998 (1) amending Directive 96/26/EC on admission
                                                                               to the occupation of road haulage operator and road
                                                                               passenger transport operator and mutual recognition
                                                                               of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal
                                                                               qualifications intended to facilitate for these operators
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger                         the right to freedom of establishment in national and
Verwaltungssenat Salzburg by order of that court of 12                         international transport operations, the Hellenic Republic
March 2001 in the appeal concerning (1) Dr Karl Friedrich                      has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;
Strobl, (2) the Mayor of Salzburg, and (3) the land transfer
                 agent of the Land of Salzburg
                                                                         —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                        (Case C-123/01)
                        (2001/C 150/28)
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-
tungssenat Salzburg of 12 March 2001, received at the Court
Registry on 19 March 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the               The Member States are required by the binding character of
appeal concerning (1) Dr Karl Friedrich Strobl, (2) the Mayor            the third paragraph of Article 249 EC and Article 10 EC to
of Salzburg, and (3) the land transfer agent of the Land of              adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into national
Salzburg on the following question:                                      law before the expiry of the time-limit laid down for that
                                                                         purpose and to communicate those measures immediately to
Are the provisions of Article 56 et seq. of the EC Treaty to be          the Commission. That time-limit expired on 1 October
interpreted as precluding the application of Paragraphs 12, 36           1999 without the Hellenic Republic having notified to the
and 43 of the Salzburger Grundverkehrsgesetz (Salzburg Land              Commission the provisions transposing the directive in ques-
Transfer Law) of 1997 in the version published in LGB1.                  tion into national law.
No. 11/1999, whereby any person who wishes to acquire a
building plot in the federal Land of Salzburg must comply
with a notification or authorisation procedure in respect of the
acquisition of that plot, with the consequence that one of the           (1) OJ L 277 of 14.10.1998.
fundamental freedoms of the acquirer of title as guaranteed by
the laws of the European Union has been infringed in this
case?