CELEX: C1999/020/42
Language: en
Date: 1999-01-23 00:00:00
Title: Appeal brought on 1 December 1998 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment delivered on 30 September 1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-13/97 between A. Losch and the Court of Justice of the European Communities, supported by the Council of the European Union and the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Case C-433/98 P)

23.1.1999            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 20/25
The appellant claims that the Court should:                          Ð Misapplication of the doctrine requiring the European
                                                                         Parliament to be reconsulted: in view of the fact that
                                                                         all the institutions concerned, namely the European
Ð set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of               Parliament, the Council and the Commission, were
    30 September 1998 in Case T-154/96 between                           aware that the regulations concerning termination of
    Christiane Chvatal and Others and the Court of                       service, applicable solely to the European Parliament,
    Justice of the European Communities, supported by                    were designed to meet a pressing wish expressed by
    the Council of the European Union and the Kingdom                    the latter institution, the flexibility of the Community
    of the Netherlands;                                                  legislative process, which is necessary in order to
                                                                         arrive at a convergence between the views expressed
Ð in its discretion, make the appropriate order as to the                by the institutions concerned, should apply in the
    costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice.                present case as regards the form in which the
                                                                         European Parliament may communicate its opinion to
                                                                         the Council or its assent to an amendment to the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      proposal initially submitted by the Commission. In
                                                                         this case, excessive adherence to formalities impeded
(As to the admissibility of the action)                                  the proper functioning of the legislative process, whilst
                                                                         not meeting any need.
The analysis of the Court of First Instance concerning the
admissibility of the action is incorrect in law. The Council         Ð Erroneous insistence on the requirement that the Staff
considers that, although persons to whom the Staff                       Committee be reconsulted (misinterpretation of the
Regulations apply have an unrestricted right to submit                   scope of Article 10 of the Staff Regulations): the
requests falling within the scope of the Staff Regulations,              parallel drawn by the judgment of the Court of First
the right to submit requests may under no circumstances                  Instance between a joint body operating within the
be exercised in the absence of a proper legal basis. In the              institutions, legitimately representing the interests of a
present case, there cannot have been an act adversely                    particular category of persons, and the European
affecting an official, because, in its response, the                     Parliament, which is an institution democratically
appointing authority merely stated that, under the                       elected by direct universal suffrage, constitutes a
legislation as it then stood, there was no legal basis                   serious modification of the institutional system of the
enabling termination of service to take place. Only if                   European Union, as organised by the Treaty and
different legislation were adopted could the respondents'                interpreted by the case-law of the Court of Justice,
legal situation have altered. The construction placed on                 and hence an infringement of Community law.
the matter by the Court of First Instance, whereby it
concluded that the response given by the Court's                     (1) OJ L 280, 23.11.1995, p. 1.
appointing authority had had an adverse effect, is based
on an erroneous legal characterisation which is not in line
with previous case-law and which clearly encroaches on
the powers reserved by the Treaty to the legislature alone.
The Court of First Instance erred in declaring the                   Appeal brought on 1 December 1998 by the Council of
objection of illegality raised in relation to Council                the European Union against the judgment delivered on
Regulation (EC, ECSC, Euratom) No 2688/95 (1)                        30 September 1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of
admissible. In order for an objection of illegality to be            First Instance of the European Communities in Case
admissible, the application for annulment must itself be             T-13/97 between A. Losch and the Court of Justice of the
founded on a substantial cause of action, since the                  European Communities, supported by the Council of the
objection of illegality constitutes one of the pleas in law             European Union and the Kingdom of the Netherlands
put forward in support of that application. In the present
case, the application was in reality aimed solely at                                       (Case C-433/98 P)
contesting the regulation.                                                                   (1999/C 20/42)
(As to the substance)
                                                                     An appeal against the judgment delivered on 30 September
                                                                     1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
Ð Misapplication of the principle of non-discrimination:             of the European Communities in Case T-13/97 between A.
    the Court of First Instance erred in law in concluding           Losch and the Court of Justice of the European
    that the Council drew an arbitrary, or at least a                Communities, supported by the Council of the European
    manifestly inadequate, distinction in relation to the            Union and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, was brought
    objective pursued. The Parliament had undertaken not             before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
    to increase its complement of staff for five years, and          on 1 December 1998 by the Council of the European
    had called for the submission, as a matter of urgency,           Union, represented by Jean-Paul JacqueÂ, Director in its
    of a proposal for a regulation with respect to its               Legal Service, and Diego Canga Fano and TheÂreÁse
    personnel, whereas the Court had simply announced                Blanchet, of its Legal Service, with an address for service
    that it intended to take measures to terminate the               in Luxembourg at the Office of Alessandro Morbilli,
    service of a number of its officials.                            Director-General of the Legal Affairs Directorate of the
 ---pagebreak--- C 20/26              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                23.1.1999
European Investment       Bank,  100    Boulevard     Konrad       Appeal brought on 3 December 1998 (received at the
Adenauer.                                                          Registry of the Court of First Instance on 30 November
                                                                   1998) by Sari Jouhki against the judgment delivered on
                                                                   16 September 1998 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
                                                                   T-215/97 between Sari Jouhki and the Commission of the
Ð set aside the judgment of the Court    of First Instance of                        European Communities
    30 September 1998 in Case            T-13/97 between
                                                                                        (Case C-435/98 P)
    Antoinette Losch and the Court       of Justice of the
    European Communities, supported      by the Council of                                (1999/C 20/44)
    the European Union and the           Kingdom of the
    Netherlands;
                                                                   An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 September
Ð in its discretion, make the appropriate order as to the          1998 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First
    costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice.          Instance of the European Communities in Case T-215/97
                                                                   between Sari Jouhki and the Commission of the European
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in             Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
Case C-432/98 P.                                                   the European Communities on 3 December 1998 (received
                                                                   at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on
                                                                   30 November 1998) by Sari Jouhki, represented by Harri
                                                                   Ojala, lawyer, of Ojala & Urpelainen, Isokatu 16 B 16,
                                                                   90100 Oulu, Finland.
Appeal brought on 1 December 1998 by the Council of
                                                                   The appellant claims that the Court should:
the European Union against the judgment delivered on
30 September 1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities in Case
T-164/97 between S. Busacca and Others and the Court               Ð set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance in
         of Auditors of the European Communities                       so far as it dismissed Ms Jouhki's action against the
                                                                       Commission;
                     (Case C-434/98 P)
                       (1999/C 20/43)
                                                                   Ð annul the decision of the selection board for
                                                                       Commission competition COM/B/973 of 5 September
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 30 September
                                                                       1996 not to admit Ms Jouhki to the competition; and
1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities in Case T-164/97 between
S. Busacca and Others and the Court of Auditors of the
European Communities was brought before the Court of               Ð declare that Ms Jouhki was entitled to take part in
Justice of the European Communities on 1 December                      competition COM/B/973.
1998 by the Council of the European Union, represented
by Jean-Paul JacqueÂ, Director in its Legal Service, and
Diego Canga Fano and TheÂreÁse Blanchet, of its Legal              The appellant also asks the Court of Justice to rule on
Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the          costs in accordance with its Rules of Procedure.
Office of Alessandro Morbilli, Director-General of the
Legal Affairs Directorate of the European Investment
Bank, 100 Boulevard Konrad Adenauer.                               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   The selection board for the competition was bound by the
Ð set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of         wording of the competition notice as published.
    30 September 1998 in Case T-164/97 between Silvio
    Busacca and Others and the Court of Auditors of the
    European Communities;                                          The decision of the Court of First Instance breaches
                                                                   Community law, in that the selection board for the
                                                                   competition was bound by the wording of the competition
Ð in its discretion, make the appropriate order as to the
                                                                   notice as published.
    costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice.
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in             The selection board was obliged to take account of all the
Case C-432/98 P.                                                   certificates which Ms Jouhki produced before the
                                                                   time-limit fixed in the notice of competition for making
                                                                   applications.