CELEX: C1995/159/29
Language: en
Date: 1995-06-24 00:00:00
Title: Appeal brought on 24 March 1995 by Henri de Compte against the judgment delivered on 26 January 1995 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-90/91 and T-62/92 between Henri de Compte and the European Parliament (Case C-90/95 P)

24 . 6 . 95            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 159/ 15
    the appellant in all his duties , grade, step and salary with      Compte , represented by Eric Boigelot, with an address for
    retroactive effect to the date on which the contested              service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2
    decision took effect, in accordance with the decision              Rue du Fort Rheinsheim .
    which the Court adopts, and further order the
    respondent to pay to the appellant all his arrears of              The appellant claims that the Court should :
    salary, including the benefit which he receives and are
    due to him from 1 December 1993 until the date of the              1 , declare the appeal admissible and well-founded;
    decision to be adopted , together with interest at the
    annual rate of 8 % from the date on which each                     2 , consequently:
    instalment of salary fell due, and order the respondent in
                                                                            ( a ) annul the contested judgment, save in so far as it
    any event to pay the costs of the two actions ,
                                                                                  acknowledges that the appellant has suffered
                                                                                  non-material damage for which the respondent is
— order the Commission of the European Communities to                             ordered to pay him compensation in the sum of Bfrs
    pay the entire costs of the two actions .                                     200 000;
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                         ( b ) adjudicate itself on the dispute and , upholding the
                                                                                  appellant's original claims :
Infringement of Community law, in particular :                                    — first, in Case T-90/91 , annul the decision of
                                                                                      18 April 1991 by which the appointing
— infringement of Article 33 of the Statute of the Court of                          authority retroactively revoked its decision of
    Justice of the EEC, applicable to the Court of First                             24 January 1991 recognizing the occupational
    Instance of the European Communities by virtue of                                nature of the appellant's disease and decided
    Article 46 of the said Statute, which was inserted therein                       that a different decision should be taken in place
    by Article 7 of the Council Decision of 24 October 1988                          of the said decision of 24 January 1991 in the
    establishing a Court of First Instance of the European                           light of the judgment delivered in Case T-26/89
    Communities; the obligation to state the reasons on                              between the appellant and the European
    which judgments are based requires those reasons, in                             Parliament,     and    annul   the   decision   of
    particular, to be legally admissible , that is to say,                           23 September 1991 rejecting the appellant's
    relevant, free from errors of law or fact and                                    complaint lodged on 4 June 1991 , and
    consistent,                                                                      consequently order the respondent to pay to
                                                                                     him the sum of Bfrs 9 147 091 together with
— breach of the general legal principles applying under                              default interest at the annual rate of 10 % from
    Community law, namely, in particular, the principles of                          24 January 1991 ,
    proportionality, of the right to a fair hearing and of
    impartiality, and also of the general legal principle that                    — second, in Case T-62/92, annul the decision of
    all administrative acts must be based on reasons which                           20 January 1992 by which the appointing
    are legally admissible, that is to say, relevant and free                        authority decided that the appellant was not
    from errors of fact and/or law; this means, in particular,                       suffering from an occupational disease within
    that full proof of the facts relied on must be                                   the meaning of the Rules on the Insurance of
    furnished .                                                                      Officials of the European Communities against
                                                                                     the risk of Accident and of Occupational
                                                                                     Disease, together with the decision of 4 June
(M OJ No C 54 , 4 . 3 . 1995 , p . lé .
                                                                                      1992 rejecting the appellant's complaint lodged
                                                                                     on 8 April 1992 and notified on 10 April 1992,
                                                                                     and consequenly order the respondent to pay to
                                                                                     him the sum of Bfrs 9 147 091 together with
                                                                                     default interest at the annual rate of 10 % with
                                                                                     effect, at all events and subject to all necessary
                                                                                     express reservations, from 24 January 1991 ;
Appeal brought on 24 March 1995 by Henri de Compte
against the judgment delivered on 26 January 1995 by the               3 , order the European Parliament to pay the entire costs of
First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European               the two actions .
Communities in Joined Cases T-90/91 and T-62/92
 between Henri de Compte and the European Parliament
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                        ( Case C-90/95 P)
                           ( 95/C 159/29 )                             Infringement of Community law, in particular :
                                                                       — infringement of Article 33 of the Statute of the Court of
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 January                     Justice of the EEC, applicable to the Court of First
1995 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of                Instance of the European Communities by virtue of
the European Communities in Joined Cases T-90/91 and                       Article 46 of the said Statute, which was inserted therein
T-62/92 between Henri de Compte and the European                           by Article 7 of the Council Decision of 24 October 1988
Parliament was brought before the Court of Justice of the                  establishing a Court of First Instance of the European
European Communities on 24 March 1995 by Henri de                          Communities; the obligation to state the reasons on
 ---pagebreak--- No C 159/ 16          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    24 . 6 . 95
    which judgments are based requires those reasons, in                  procedural conditions laid down by the national law of
    particular, to be legally admissible, that is to say,                 the Member States concerning claims for reparation of
    relevant, free from errors of law or fact and                         damage on account of failure to implement a
    consistent,                                                           Community directive must be the same as ( or in any
                                                                          event not more unfavourable than) those laid down by
— infringement of the Staff Regulations of officials of the               the national legislator in belatedly implementing the
    European Communities, in particular Article 73 thereof,               Directive itself?
    and of the Rules on the Insurance of Officials of the
    European Communities against the risk of Accident and            (') OJ No L 283 , 20 . 10 . 1980 , p . 23 .
    of Occupational Disease , in particular Article 3
    thereof,
— breach of the general legal principles applying under
    Community law, namely, in particular, the principles of          Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberver­
    legal certainty, good faith, the protection of legitimate        waltungsgericht fiir das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen by
                                                                     order of that court of 17 March 1995 in the case of Paul
    expectations and the duty to have regard for the welfare
                                                                     Daut GmbH &c Co KG v. Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises
    and/or interests of officials, of the principle that acts
    should be done within a reasonable time, and also of the                                         Gxitersloh
    principle that all administrative acts must be based on                                     ( Case C-105/95 )
    reasons which are legally admissible, that is to say,                                         ( 95/C 159/31 )
    relevant and free from errors of law and/or fact .
                                                                     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                     European Communities by an order of the Thirteenth
                                                                     Senate of the Oberverwaltungsgericht fiir das Land
                                                                     Nordrhein-Westfalen ( Higher Administrative Court, North
References for preliminary rulings from the Pretura                  Rhine Westphalia ) of 17 March 1995 , which was received at
Circondariale di Bassano del Grappa by orders of that court          the Court Registry on 31 March 1995 , for a preliminary
of 21 March 1995 in the cases of 1 . Danila Bonifaci and             ruling in the case of Paul Daut GmbH & Co KG v.
Others, 2 . Wanda Berto and Others v. Istituto Nazionale             Oberkreisdirektor des Kreises Giitersloh on the following
               délia Previdenza Sociale ( INPS )                     questions:
                ( Cases C-94/95 and C-95/95 )
                                                                     Is it compatible with Articles 30 and 36 of the EC Treaty in
                         ( 95/C 159/30 )                             conjunction with Council Directive 64/433/EEC on health
                                                                     requirements and the marketing of fresh meat (*) ('the fresh
References have been made to the Court of Justice of the             meat Directive ') in the codified version annexed to Council
European Communities by orders of the Pretura                        Directive 91/497/EEC of 29 July 1991 ( 2 ) as amended by
Circondariale di Bassano del Grappa ( District Magistrate's          Directive 92/5/EEC of 10 February 1992 ( 3 ) and in
Court, Bassano del Grappa ) of 21 March 1995 , which were            conjunction with Directive 77/99/EEC on health problems
received at the Court Registry on 24 March 1 995 , for               affecting intra-Community trade in meat products ( 4 ) ('the
preliminary rulings in the cases of 1 . Danila Bonifaci and          meat products Directive') in the version annexed to
Others, 2 . Wanda Berto and Others v. Istituto Nazionale             Directive 92/5/EEC if the respondent — on the basis of
délia Previdenza Sociale ( National Social Welfare                   paragraph 17 ( 1 ) ( 2 ) of the Verordnung iiber die
Institution — INPS ) on the following questions :                    hygienischen           Anforderungen         und     amtlichen
                                                                     Untersuchungen beim Verkehr mit Fleisch ( Regulations on
1 . Must Article 4 ( 2 ) of Council Directive 80/987/EEC ( l )       hygiene requirements and official examinations relating to
     be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may            trade in meat, 'the FlHV') of 30 October 1986 , BGBl 1 1678 ,
     opt to limit the liability of the guarantee institutions to     as last amended by the EWR-Ausfiihrungsgesetz ( EEA
     pay remuneration to a particular period of time — in this       implementation law ) of 27 April 1993 , BGBl I 512, 552 —
     case, 12 months — even in cases where the period in time        objects to the import of frozen mechanically recovered meat
     in question was exceeded not because of inertia                 in the case of an EC-authorized German establishment
     amounting to fault on the part of the employee                  which is in a position to carry out heat treatment within the
     concerned and, in particular, where the employee claims         meaning of the meat products Directive and obtains frozen
     compensation for damage on account of the                       mechanically recovered meat from an EC-authorized
     non-implementation or the belated implementation of             Belgian establishment in accordance with the designation of
     the Directive itself ?                                          the Belgian EC veterinarian in order to subject it to heat
                                                                     treatment within the meaning of the meat products
2 . In the event that question 1 is answered # in the                Directive and further process it, and if not is agreement with
     affirmative, must Article 4 ( 2 ) of the Directive be           the competent German veterinary authority necessary and
     considered valid in the light of the principle of equality      between whom ?
     and non-discrimination ?
                                                                     (J)  OJ No  121 , 29 . 7. 1964 , p . 2012 .
3 . Must paragraph 43 of the Judgment of the Court of                (2 ) OJ No  L 268 , 24 . 9 . 1991 , p . 69 .
                                                                     (3 ) OJ No  L 57, 2 . 3 . 1992 , p . 1 .
     Justice of 19 November 1991 in Joined Cases C-6/90
                                                                     (4 ) OJ No  L 26 , 31 . 1 . 1977, p . 85 .
     and C-9/90 Francovich and Others v. Italian Republic
     be interpreted as meaning that the substantive and