CELEX: C1999/020/41
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-154/96 between Christiane Chvatal and Others 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-432/98 P)

C 20/24                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   23.1.1999
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                         from 1 March 1983, together with compound
Case C-429/98 (2); the time-limit prescribed by the                            legal interest at the annual rate of 10 %;
directive expired on 22 September 1996.
                                                                           Ð the appellant's application for an order requiring
(1) OJ L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64.                                                the respondent to pay the costs of the present
(2) See page 23 of this Official Journal.                                      proceedings, together with the costs of the
                                                                               proceedings before the Court of First Instance of
                                                                               the European Communities in Case T-237/87.
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Appeal brought on 30 November 1998 by Nicolaos
Progoulis against the order made on 21 September 1998                Ð     manifest error of law on the part of the Court of
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                 First Instance, in that it wrongly assimilated the
European Communities in Case T-237/97 between                              present case to Case T-16/97 Chauvin v. Commission:
Nicolaos Progoulis and the Commission of the European                      the appellant pleaded, as a material new fact,
                           Communities                                     the revelation in Case T-17/95 Alexopoulou v.
                                                                           Commission that the respondent applied a restrictive
                        (Case C-431/98 P)                                  policy as regards (re)grading after 1 September 1993,
                                                                           even in respect of officials recruited prior to that
                          (1999/C 20/40)
                                                                           date. He at no time claimed that the respondent had
                                                                           refused to apply to him the decision of 1 September
                                                                           1993, as amended following delivery of the judgment
An appeal against the order made on 21 September 1998                      in Alexopoulou, with a view to a subjective
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                 examination of his exceptional' qualifications, as
European Communities in Case T-237/97 between                              was the case in Chauvin.
Nicolaos Progoulis and the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 30 November 1998 by                      Ð     absence of an adequate statement of reasons.
Nicolaos Progoulis, represented by Konstantinos
Adamantopoulos and Vassilios Akritidis, of the Athens
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias
Hardt.
                                                                     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-154/96 between Christiane Chvatal and Others and the
(1) set aside in its entirety the order of the Court of First
                                                                     Court of Justice of the European Communities, supported
      Instance of the European Communities of
                                                                     by the Council of the European Union and the Kingdom
      21 September 1998 in Case T-237/97, in which the
                                                                                            of the Netherlands
      appellant's application was dismissed as inadmissible;
                                                                                            (Case C-432/98 P)
                                                                                              (1999/C 20/41)
(2) itself determine the dispute concerning:
      Ð annulment of the respondent's decision of 13 May             An appeal against the judgment delivered on 30 September
          1997 rejecting the appellant's complaint                   1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
          concerning refusal of his application to be                of the European Communities in Case T-154/96 between
          regraded in step 2 of grade B 1 with retroactive           Christiane Chvatal and Others and the Court of Justice of
          effect from 1 March 1983 and for the financial             the European Communities, supported by the Council of
          consequences of the regrading applied for to be            the European Union and the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
          taken into account and calculated retroactively            was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
          from 1 March 1983, together with compound                  Communities on 1 December 1998 by the Council of the
          legal interest at the annual rate of 10 %;                 European Union, represented by Jean-Paul JacqueÂ,
                                                                     Director in its Legal Service, and Diego Canga Fano and
                                                                     TheÂreÁse Blanchet, of its Legal Service, with an address for
      Ð the appellant's application for an order requiring           service in Luxembourg at the Office of Alessandro
          the respondent to pay him the amount                       Morbilli, Director-General of the Legal Affairs Directorate
          corresponding to the financial consequences of             of the European Investment Bank, 100 Boulevard Konrad
          the regrading applied for, calculated retroactively        Adenauer.
 ---pagebreak--- 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