title: Case T-254/08: Action brought on 26 June 2008 — Associazione Giullemanidallajuve v Commission

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/53

         Action brought on 26 June 2008 — Associazione Giullemanidallajuve v Commission
   (Case T-254/08)
   (2008/C 223/93)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: L'Associazione Giullemanidallajuve (Garibaldi, Italy) (represented by: L.Misson, G. Ernes and A. Kettels, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare that the Commission has failed to act;

               —

               instruct the Commission to use its powers and to reply to the complaint lodged by the applicant in May 2007;

               —

               obtain all the information necessary for that purpose.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant claims that theCommission failed to fulfil its obligation to act in that after being invited to do so it did not express its opinion on the complaint lodged by the applicant with the Commission in May 2007 concerning alleged contraventions of Articles 81 and 82 EC committed by the Federazione Italiana Giuoco Calcio (FIGC), the Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI), the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA).
   The applicant considers that the letter which was sent to it by the Commission in March 2008 further to the invitation to act and which informed it that the case was being dealt with, does not represent an expression of opinion, since the letter did not provide any replies on the substance of the requests made by the applicant.
   The applicant also claims that, in the area of competition, a complainer is entitled to expect that its complaint will be examined thoroughly by the Commission, and that a reasoned opinion will be expressed.


title: Appeal brought on 24 April 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment delivered on 19 February 1998 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-42/96 between Eyckeler & Malt AG, supported by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-163/98 P)

text:
C 258/14              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        15.8.98
Ð By omitting to make any finding as regards the                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     question whether consultation took place between the
     Directorate-General empowered to adopt a decision
     concerning classification and the Directorate-General           Ð Infringement of Article 13(1) of Council Regulation
     having power to assess the requirements of the service               (EEC) No 1430/79 on the repayment or remission of
     and whether, if such consultation took place, it was                 import or export duties (2), alternatively of Article
     conducted in a proper fashion, that is to say, by                    239(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92
     omitting to verify whether or not the appointing                     establishing the Community Customs Code (the
     authority based its decision on incorrect or incomplete              CCC') (3): the Netherlands Government considers that,
     material facts, the Court of First Instance failed to                by applying to the present case the concept of special
     exercise its powers of judicial review in relation to acts           circumstances' within the meaning of Article 13(1) of
     of the appointing authority.                                         Regulation No 1430/79, the Commission has
                                                                          committed a manifest error of assessment. First, the
                                                                          Commission failed to take into account the fact that
Ð The proceedings before the Court of First Instance                      the external Community transit system does not
     were irregular: by informing the appellant that it                   function perfectly and is susceptible to fraud. Second,
     would not take into account the observations made                    the Commission omitted to take into consideration the
     with regard to the judgment in Case T-12/97                          fact that the process of discharging customs
     Barnett (2), which it had itself requested, the Court of             documentation is so time-consuming that, before it
     First Instance misled the appellant as to her legitimate             becomes apparent that fraud is involved, the customs
     expectations. By failing to take cognizance of the                   debt may have risen to a substantial level as a result of
     appellant's observations containing new pleas based                  successive transit operations. In consequence of the
     on matters of fact and law which had emerged in the                  system provided for by the CCC, it frequently happens
     course of the proceedings (consisting of the new case-               in cases of documentary fraud that it does not become
     law established by the Court of First Instance in its                apparent to the declarant that fraud is involved until
     judgment in Barnett), the Court of First Instance                    after 14 months have passed.
     wrongfully omitted to apply Article 48(1) and the first
     and second subparagraphs of Article 48(2) of the
     Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance,              Ð Breach of the requirement to provide a statement of
     whereas the appellant's case was precisely the type of               reasons: the contested decision is accompanied by, at
     dispute for which the legislature intended to provide                best, only a summary statement of reasons. The
     by adopting that provision. Similarly, the contested                 Commission has failed to state the extent to which, as
     order failed to apply the third subparagraph of                      a result of the defects in the operation of the external
     Article 48(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of              Community transit system and the impracticability of
     First Instance.                                                      checking within a reasonable time that customs
                                                                          formalities have been properly completed, or of
                                                                          adopting measures to limit the loss, liability for the
(1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998, p. 14.
(2) Judgment of 5.11.1997, OJ C 387 of 20.12.1997, p. 17.                 whole or part of the customs debt cannot be imposed
                                                                          on the customs agent.
                                                                     (1) Decision of the Commission establishing that remission of
                                                                         import duties pursuant to Article 13(1) of Council Regulation
                                                                         (EEC) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 is not justified in a specific
                                                                         case.
Action brought on 24 April 1998 by the Kingdom of the                (2) OJ L 175 of 12.7.1979, p. 1.
                                                                     (3) OJ L 302 of 19.10.1992, p. 1.
Netherlands against the Commission of the European
                         Communities
                       (Case C-157/98)
                        (98/C 258/25)
                                                                     Appeal brought on 24 April 1998 by the Commission of
An action against the Commission of the European                     the European Communities against the judgment delivered
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of               on 19 February 1998 by the First Chamber of the Court
the European Communities on 24 April 1998 by the                     of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
Kingdom of the Netherlands, represented by Marc Fierstra             T-42/96 between Eyckeler & Malt AG, supported by the
and Corinna Wissels, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,             United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
The Hague, acting as Agents.                                              and the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-163/98 P)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (98/C 258/26)
annul the decision of the Commission (1), communicated
to the Netherlands Government by notice of 19 February               An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 February
1998, and order the Commission to pay the costs.                     1998 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance
 ---pagebreak--- 15.8.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 258/15
of the European Communities in Case T-42/96 between                     Hewlett Packard judgment that Article 13 of
Eyckeler & Malt AG, supported by the United Kingdom                     Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 and Article 5(2) of
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the                          Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 pursue the same aim,
Commission of the European Communities was brought                      namely to limit the post-clearance payment of import
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities                 and export duties to cases where such payment is
on 24 April 1998 by the Commission of the European                      justified and is compatible with a fundamental
Communities, represented by Jean-Louis Dewost,                          principle such as that of the protection of legitimate
Director-General of the Legal Service, and Götz zur                     expectations'. The Court of Justice thereby assumes a
Hausen, Legal Adviser, with an address for service in                   general comparability between the two provisions.
Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, a
Member of the Commission's Legal Service, Wagner
                                                                    (1) OJ 1998 C 113, p. 13.
Centre, Kirchberg.
The appellant claims that the Court should:
1. set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
    19 February 1998 in Case T-42/96 (1);                           Action brought on 8 May 1998 by the Commission of the
                                                                      European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
2. dismiss the action;                                                                     (Case C-170/98)
                                                                                (98/C 258/27)
3. order the applicant to pay the costs.
                                                                    An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                    on 8 May 1998 by the Commission of the European
Ð Error of law in relation to the plea alleging breach of           Communities, represented by Frank Benyon, Legal
    the rights of the defence:                                      Adviser, and Bernard Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting
                                                                    as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                    the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre,
    The contested judgment erroneously transposes                   Kirchberg.
    considerations applicable to competition proceedings
    to the procedure for remission of import duties and
    thereby concludes that in the procedure for remission           The Commission of the European Communities claims
    of such duties the Commission should allow the                  that the Court should:
    undertaking      access     to   all    non-confidential
    administrative papers, including those which the
    Commission regards as irrelevant or which might be              (1) declare that, by omitting either to adjust the
    detrimental to it. That requirement fails to take into              agreement with Zaire (1) in such a way as to provide
    account the particular features of the procedure for                for fair, free and non-discriminatory access by
    remission of customs duties, in which not only the                  Community nationals to cargo-shares due to Belgium
    conduct of the undertaking but also that of the                     or to denounce that agreement, Belgium has failed to
    authorities of Member States and non-member                         fulfil its obligations under Council Regulation (EEC)
    countries is to be assessed.                                        No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the
                                                                        principle of freedom to provide services to maritime
                                                                        transport between Member States and between
Ð Error of law in relation to the plea alleging
                                                                        Member States and third countries (2), in particular
    infringement of Article 13 of Council Regulation
                                                                        Articles 3 and 4(1) thereof;
    (EEC) No 1430/79 on the repayment or remission of
    import or export duties:
                                                                    (2) order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
    The contested judgment wrongly held the existence of
    an error (within the meaning of Article 5(2) of
    Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79) by the competent                   Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    authorities not to be a necessary precondition for the
    remission of duties. The Court of First Instance
    interprets the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case         Article 18 of the agreement with Zaire makes provision
    C-250/91 Hewlett Packard France [1993] ECR I-1819               for the two parties' intention not to be bound thereby
    too narrowly. Contrary to the finding in paragraph 137          until after completion of the formalities required under
    of the contested judgment, the Court of Justice did not         their respective laws'. Those formalities were completed
    merely hold the subjective elements of the two                  by Belgium upon adoption of the Law of 21 April 1983
    provisions to be comparable. On the contrary, the               approving the agreement, which was notified to Zaire on
    Court of Justice makes it clear in paragraph 46 of the          13 June 1983, that is to say, prior to the entry into force


title: Case C-151/00: Action brought on 19 April 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 192/8                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                            8.7.2000
     — Article 2 of Directive 89/369/EEC (1), inasmuch as the            The Commission of the European Communities claims that
          three plants are operating without any authorisation           the Court should:
          having been issued for that purpose;
                                                                         (1) declare that, by failing to bring into force and to communi-
     — Article 6 of Directive 89/369/EEC, inasmuch as, with                   cate to the Commission within the prescribed time-limit
          regard to the said plants, the competent authorities                the national measures necessary in order to transpose
                                                                              Articles 4(2), 6(1), (3) and (4), 7, 8(2), (3), (4) and (6), 11(2)
          — have not taken the periodic measurements in                       and 12 of Directive 97/66/EC (1), the French Republic has
              relation to the parameters prescribed by that article;          failed to comply with its obligations under Article 15 of
                                                                              the said directive;
          — have not given prior authorisation for the sampling
              and measurement procedures or determined the               (2) order the French Republic to pay the costs.
              location of the measurement points concerned;
          — have not laid down any measurement programme;
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
     — Article 7 of Directive 89/369/EEC, inasmuch as the
          three plants are not equipped with auxiliary burners           The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph
          enabling a minimum combustion temperature of 850°              of Article 249 EC and the first paragraph of Article 10 EC is
          to be guaranteed, particularly during start-up and shut-       such as to oblige Member States to adopt the measures
          down operations,                                               necessary in order to transpose directives into their national
                                                                         legal order within the time-limit prescribed therein. The time-
     the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations           limit fixed in Article 15(1) of the directive at issue in the
     under Directive 89/369/EEC;                                         present case expired on 24 October 1998 but France has not
                                                                         adopted the measures necessary to transpose the provisions of
(2) order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                         the articles referred to above.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          (1) Directive 97/66/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
                                                                             concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of
                                                                             privacy in the telecommunications sector (OJ L 24 of 30.1.1998,
Although the mandatory start-up authorisation had not been                   p. 1).
given, the automatic incineration plants located at Mazo and
Barlovento started to operate in January 1992; consequently,
Directive 89/369/EEC must be regarded as applicable to the
present case. In its letter of 3 February 1999 forwarding
information provided by the Consejerı́a de Industria y Comer-
cio (Ministry of Industry and Commerce) of the Government
of the Canaries, the Spanish Government acknowledged the
non-compliance indicated above.
                                                                         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the investigating
                                                                         judge at the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Turnhout, by
(1) Council Directive 89/369/EEC of 8 June 1989 on the prevention
    of air pollution from new municipal waste incineration plants (OJ
                                                                         order of 13 April 2000 in criminal proceedings against
    L 163 of 14.6.1989, p. 32).                                                                     P. der Weduwe
                                                                                (Case C-153/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 192/15)
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Action brought on 19 April 2000 by the Commission of
                                                                         European Communities by order of 13 April 2000 by the
 the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                         investigating judge at the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, (First
                                                                         Instance Court), Turnhout which was received at the Court
                          (Case C-151/00)                                Registry on 25 April 2000, in criminal proceedings against
                                                                         P. der Weduwe for a preliminary ruling on the following
                          (2000/C 192/14)                                questions:
An action against the French Republic was brought before the             Where a credit institution authorised in a Member State in
Court of Justice on 19 April 2000 by the Commission of the               which breaches of banking secrecy are a criminal offence
European Communities, represented by Bernard Mongin, of its              operates, under the freedom to provide services, in another
Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in           Member State where there is no analogous banking secrecy,
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its             must Article 49 EC (formerly Article 59 of the EC Treaty) be
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                 interpreted:


title: Judgment of the Court of 27 June 2000 in Case C-404/97: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations — State aid incompatible with the common market — Recovery — Absolute impossibility)

text:
21.10.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                                C 302/3
(Agent: G. Rozet) — application for the annulment of Com-                  Article 5(1)(b) of First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of
mission Decision 1999/133/EC of 10 June 1998 concerning                    21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States
State aid in favour of Coopérative d’Exportation du Livre                  relating to trade marks cannot be interpreted as meaning that where
Français (CELF) (OJ 1999 L 44, p. 37) — the Court (Fifth
Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the                     —     a trade mark has a particularly distinctive character, either per
Chamber, L. Sevón, P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), P. Jann and                     se or because of the reputation it enjoys with the public, and
H. Ragnemalm, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate General;
D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Regis-
trar, has given a judgment on 22 June 2000, in which it:                   —     a third party, without the consent of the proprietor of the mark,
                                                                                uses, in the course of trade in goods or services which are
1.    Dismisses the action;                                                      identical with, or similar to, those for which the trade mark is
                                                                                registered, a sign which so closely corresponds to the mark as to
2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.                               give rise to the possibility of its being associated with that mark,
                                                                           the exclusive right enjoyed by the proprietor entitles him to prevent
(1) OJ C 327 of 24.10.1998.                                                the use of the sign by that third party if the distinctive character of
                                                                           the mark is such that the possibility of such association giving rise to
                                                                           confusion cannot be ruled out.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 20 of 23.1.1999.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                          of 22 June 2000
in Case C-425/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Marca Mode CV v
               Adidas AG, Adidas Benelux BV (1)
                                                                                of 27 June 2000
(Directive 89/104/EEC — Article 5(1)(b) — Trade marks
— Likelihood of confusion — Likelihood of association                      in Case C-404/97: Commission of the European Communi-
             between the sign and the trade mark)                                             ties v Portuguese Republic (1)
                          (2000/C 302/05)
                                                                           (Failure to fulfil obligations — State aid incompatible with
                                                                            the common market — Recovery — Absolute impossibility)
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (2000/C 302/06)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
In Case C-425/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Hoge Raad
der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) for a                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                                       in the European Court Reports)
court between Marca Mode CV and Adidas AG, Adidas Benelux
BV — on the interpretation of Article 5(1)(b) of First Council
Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate                    In Case C-404/97: Commission of the European Communities
the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ                  (Agents: D. Triantafyllou and A.M. Alves Vieira) v Portuguese
1989 L 40, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed                     Republic (Agents: J. Mota de Campos, L. Fernandes and
of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber,                    M.L. Duarte) — application for a declaration that, by failing to
C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch and                   cancel and recover, within the prescribed period, the aid from
F. Macken, Judges; F. G. Jacobs; Advocate General; H. von                  which EPAC — Empresa para a Agroalimentação e Cereais, SA
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a                 unduly benefited, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil
judgment on 22 June 2000, in which it has ruled:                           its obligations under Commission Decision 97/762/EC of
 ---pagebreak--- C 302/4                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           21.10.2000
9 July 1997 on measures taken by Portugal to assist EPAC —                 ation of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on
Empresa Para a Agroalimentação e Cereais, SA (OJ 1997                     unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) —
L 311, p. 25) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez                    the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President,
Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida, D.A.O. Edward,              L. Sevón (President of Chamber), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann,
L. Sevón (Rapporteur) and R. Schintgen (Presidents of Cham-               J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann (Rapporteur), H. Ragne-
bers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm,                  malm, M. Wathelet, V. Skouris and F. Macken, Judges; A. Sag-
M. Wathelet and V. Skouris, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,                gio, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has                   the Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 June 2000, in which
given a judgment on 27 June 2000, in which it:                             it held that:
1.    Declares that, by failing to comply with Commission Decision         1.     The protection provided for consumers by Council Directive
      97/762/EC of 9 July 1997 on measures taken by Portugal to                   93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer
      assist EPAC — Empresa Para a Agroalimentação e Cereais,                    contracts entails the national court being able to determine of
      SA, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations            its own motion whether a term of a contract before it is unfair
      under the Treaty;                                                           when making its preliminary assessment as to whether a claim
                                                                                should be allowed to proceed before the national courts.
2.    Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                           2.     The national court is obliged, when it applies national law
                                                                                provisions predating or postdating the said Directive, to
(1) OJ C 41 of 7.2.1998.                                                          interpret those provisions, so far as possible, in the light of the
                                                                                wording and purpose of the Directive. The requirement for an
                                                                                interpretation in conformity with the Directive requires the
                                                                                national court, in particular, to favour the interpretation that
                                                                                would allow it to decline of its own motion the jurisdiction
                                                                                conferred on it by virtue of an unfair term.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          of 27 June 2000
in Joined Cases C-240/98 to C-244/98 (reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia
No 35 de Barcelona): Océano Grupo Editorial SA v Rocı́o
Murciano Quintero (C240/98) and Salvat Editores SA v                                          JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
José M. Sánchez Alcón Prades (C-241/98), José Luis
Copano Badillo (C-242/98), Mohammed Berroane                                                           (First Chamber)
      (C-243/98) and Emilio Viñas Feliú (C-244/98) (1)
                                                                                of 29 June 2000
(Directive 93/13/EEC — Unfair terms in consumer contracts
— Jurisdiction clause — Power of the national court to
   examine of its own motion whether that clause is unfair)                in Case C-455/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           from the Tampereen Käräjäoikeus): Tullihallitus v Kaupo
                                                                                Salumets and Others (1)
                          (2000/C 302/07)
                                                                           (Tax provisions — Harmonisation of laws — Turnover taxes
                                                                           — Common system of value added tax — Sixth Directive —
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                         Tax on importation — Scope — Contraband importation of
                                                                                ethyl alcohol)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                                      (2000/C 302/08)
In Joined Cases C-240/98 to C-244/98: reference to the Court                                    (Language of the case: Finnish)
under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) by
the Juzgado de Primera Instancia (Court of First Instance) No
35 de Barcelona, Spain, for a preliminary ruling in the
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
proceedings pending before that court between Océano Grupo
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
Editorial SA v Rocı́o Murciano Quintero (C-240/98) and Salvat
Editores SA v José M. Sánchez Alcón Prades (C-241/98), José
Luis Copano Badillo (C-242/98), Mohammed Berroane                          In Case C-455/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
(C-243/98) and Emilio Viñas Feliú (C-244/98), on the interpret-          the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Tampereen


title: Guide to candidates taking part in an open competition

text:
5.12.2000             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 348 A/1
                                                                  III
                                                               (Notices)
                                                COURT OF JUSTICE
                                  OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
                            GUIDE TO CANDIDATES TAKING PART IN AN OPEN COMPETITION
                                                         (2000/C 348 A/01)
             A. INTRODUCTION
             B. NOTICE OF COMPETITION AND APPLICATION FORM
                  1. Main conditions
                  2. Knowledge of languages
                  3. Education and diplomas
                  4. Experience
                  5. Signing of application form
                  6. Submission of application form and supporting documents
             C. COMPETITION PROCEDURE
                  1. Organisation
                  2. General procedure
                  3. Procedure after submission of applications
                  4. Written tests
                  5. Oral test
                  6. Reserve list
             D. CAREER PROGRESSION AND WORKING CONDITIONS
                  1. Categories of post
                  2. Remuneration and other special conditions
                       A.  INTRODUCTION                                    If you decide to enter, you should read this guide very
                                                                           carefully as it tells you:
1.   Open competitions for the recruitment of officials of the
     European Union are organised in accordance with the                   —    how to complete the application form correctly and
     Staff Regulations of Officials. Before a competition is                    what other documentation you need to provide,
     held, a notice of competition is published in the Official
     Journal of the European Communities.                                  —    how competitions are organised,
2.   Only applications submitted for a special competition                 —    what kinds of job are available and what working
     will be accepted.                                                          conditions are like in the institutions of the European
3.   This copy of the Official Journal includes the notice of                   Union.
     competition and the application form as well as this
     guide for candidates taking part in an open competition               However, this guide is for information only. The only
     for a post at the Court of Justice of the European                    text binding on the selection board in the course of its
     Communities.                                                          proceedings is the notice of competition.
 ---pagebreak--- C 348 A/2              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    5.12.2000
       B.  NOTICE OF COMPETITION AND APPLICATION FORM                             Union (Danish, Dutch, English, Finnish, French,
                                                                                German, Greek, Italian, Portuguese, Spanish and
Please read this carefully before completing your appli-                          Swedish) and a satisfactory knowledge of a second
cation form.                                                                      official language to the extent necessary for the
                                                                                performance of the duties attaching to the post in
                                                                                question.
1.    General conditions
                                                                                Candidates take the written tests in their main
      (a)   You must read the competition notice carefully so                     language (this may or may not be their mother
            as to make absolutely sure that you fulfil the basic                  tongue). If the competition notice so provides, they
            conditions for admission to the competition, in                       may have to take written tests in the second language
            particular those relating to:                                         of their choice.
            —     nationality (1),                                            (b) Some competitions, such as those for lawyer-
                                                                                linguists, interpreters and secretaries, are organised
            —     age,                                                            for candidates of a particular language.
            —     education, and
                                                                                It is very difficult for candidates, even those who
                                                                                consider themselves bilingual, to succeed in a com-
            —     any experience required.
                                                                                petition which is not in their main language.
            The selection board has to take those conditions
            into account when deciding whether or not candi-                      Candidates are therefore advised in such cases to
            dates are to be admitted to the competition.                          decide which is their main language and to apply
                                                                                only for competitions held in that language.
      (b) Candidates must use the application form for the
            appropriate competition contained in the Official            3.   Education and diplomas
            Journal. Only the form bearing the number of the
            competition may be used. Since this is the basic                  (a) As the notice of competition published in the
            document used by selection boards when they                           Official Journal is addressed to nationals of the
            decide which candidates to admit to the competition,                  15 Member States, it has to cover all the education
            it needs to be filled in extremely carefully.                         systems at the various levels and cannot therefore
                                                                                be geared to the subtleties of each individual system.
            Candidates are also asked to enclosed their curricu-
            lum vitae supplementing or providing further details              (b) Candidates educated in non-member countries
            of the information given in the application form.                     should provide a certificate of national equivalence,
                                                                                issued by the Member State of which they are
      (c)   The name under which you apply must be used in all                    nationals, for diplomas and certificates obtained
            correspondence in connection with the competition                     outside the European Union to enable the selection
            even if you subsequently change your marital status.                  board to assess the level of their studies.
      (d) Candidates are urged to provide their permanent
                                                                              (c) Educational qualifications will be checked and as-
            address where they can be contacted at any time
                                                                                sessed by the selection board and, where necessary,
            during the duration of the procedure. They must
                                                                                by persons with an expert knowledge of your
            notify the recruitment section without delay of
                                                                                country’s education system.
            any change of address in order to ensure the safe
            arrival of communications concerning the compe-
            tition.                                                               It is very important that you give the precise dates
                                                                                and details of the different stages and levels of your
      (e)   Candidates seeking exemption from the age limit                       education on your application form.
            must fill in the appropriate part of the application
            form and enclose supporting documents.                                In the case of technical or vocational training and
                                                                                specialist or refresher training, you should specify
                                                                                whether the course was full-time or part-time or an
2.    Knowledge of languages                                                      evening course, what subjects were covered and
                                                                                how long the course lasted.
      (a)   All candidates for a post in an institution of the
            European Union must have a thorough knowledge
                                                                              (d) Photocopies of the diplomas or certificates
            of one of the official languages of the European
                                                                                required for admission to the competition must
                                                                                be enclosed with your application form.
(1) The Member States of the European Union are: Austria, Belgium,
    Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxem-             Candidates who fail to submit copies of their
    bourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United                diplomas or certificates will not be admitted to
    Kingdom.                                                                      the competition.
 ---pagebreak--- 5.12.2000           EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 348 A/3
4.   Experience                                                                  Candidates who fail to provide the necessary
                                                                                supporting documents in respect of their pro-
                                                                                fessional experience will not be admitted to the
     (a) A minimum number of years’ experience is required                       competition.
         for many competitions. This part of the application
         form should be filled in extremely carefully.
                                                                     5.   Signing of application form
     (b) You should specify the exact date when you took up               It is compulsory to sign the completed application form.
         or left a post, describe your duties and the kind of             In signing you are declaring on your honour that the
         work involved and give precise details of your                   information provided is true and complete, and clearly
         responsibilities and of your salary.                             indicating your intention to take part in the competition.
         Simply to say ‘manager’ or ‘office worker’ is not                An unsigned application will be considered void and
         sufficient and may result in exclusion from the                  will be rejected without being forwarded to the
         competition on the grounds that there is no evidence             selection board.
         that you have the required experience.
                                                                     6.   Submission of application form and supporting docu-
                                                                          ments
         It is in your interest to provide full details of the
         posts your have held. If necessary, you should attach            (a)    Each applicant’s file consists of the official appli-
         additional sheets to your application.
                                                                                cation form, which must be signed, together with
                                                                                supporting documents.
     (c) Where professional experience is specified in the
         notice of competition, it is counted only from                   (b) The official application form, together with photo-
         the time the candidate obtained the certificate or                      copies of supporting documents, must be sent,
         diploma required for admission to the competition.                      preferably by registered post, by the deadline speci-
                                                                                fied in the notice of competition, as evidenced by
                                                                                the postmark.
         Any experience gained prior to this will not be
         counted by the selection board.                                         Application forms and photocopies of support-
                                                                                ing documents lodged after the deadline will
         By providing clear and correct details of your                          be rejected without being forwarded to the
         experience, you place the selection board in the best                   selection board.
         possible position to decide whether or not to admit
         you to the competition.                                          (c)    Candidates may not refer to documents, application
                                                                                forms or information sheets submitted in connec-
                                                                                tion with previous recruitment procedures.
     (d) Since further training courses leading to a certificate
         or diploma and duly attested periods of specialist or            (d) Documents enclosed with the application form will
         refresher training count as professional experience,                    not be returned. Candidates are recommended to
         provided that they are relevant to the duties specified                 send copies of their certificates and diplomas and of
         in the notice of competition, full supporting docu-                     documents relating to their professional experience.
         mentation must be provided.
         The exact dates (day, month, year) when each period                                C. COMPETITION PROCEDURE
         began and ended must be specified.
                                                                     1.   Organisation
         Without this information, the selection board will
         be unable to determine how much experience to                    (a)    In the case of competitions run by the Court
         credit you with.                                                        of Justice, candidates will be dealing throughout
                                                                                exclusively with the Recruitment Section of the
                                                                                Personnel Division of the Court of Justice.
     (e) Photocopies of statements from previous
         employers and from your present employer
         confirming your experience must be enclosed                      (b) All correspondence should be sent to the following
         with your application form.                                             address:
                                                                                Court of Justice of the European Communities
         If you are unable to provide a statement from                                    Personnel Division — Recruitment
         your present employer, you may send a photo-                                             L-2925 Luxembourg
         copy of your contract or of your first and your                                       Telephone (352) 43 03-1
         latest payslips instead.                                                               Fax (352) 43 03-27 10
 ---pagebreak--- C 348 A/4                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     5.12.2000
      (c)   The Court of Justice applies a policy of equal                     (e) after considering the files, the selection board draws
            opportunity and of selection according to merit by                     up a list of candidates who meet the conditions set
            means of fair competitions open to all. All such                       out in the notice of competition:
            steps as shall be considered reasonable will be taken
                                                                                —     for competitions based on tests, all candidates
            to ensure that handicapped persons can take part in
                                                                                on the list are admitted to the tests,
            competitions on an equal footing with the other
            candidates.                                                            —     for competitions based on qualifications and
                                                                                tests, the selection board first establishes the
            In accordance with the code of good conduct in                               criteria on the basis of which it will assess the
            force at the Court of Justice, handicapped persons                           candidates’ qualifications and then decides on
            are requested to specify, in their application form,                         the basis of the list, after examining the qualifi-
            the equipment they consider necessary for their                              cations, which candidates are to be admitted to
            participation in the tests. Everything will be done to                       the tests,
            ensure that they are treated equally with the other                    —     for competitions based on qualifications, the
            candidates and all reasonable arrangements request-                          selection board establishes the criteria on which
            ed by them will be made.                                                     it will examine the qualifications of candidates
                                                                                on the list, gives marks for the qualifications
                                                                                and draws up a list of suitable candidates in
2.    General procedure                                                                  order of merit.
      The Staff Regulations provide for three different types of          3.   Procedure after the submission of applications
      competition.                                                             (a) The safe arrival of your application form will
                                                                                be acknowledged by the Personnel Division. This
      As a general rule, staff are recruited to the Court of Justice               acknowledgement does not necessarily mean that
      by means of competitions based on qualifications and                         you will be admitted to the competition.
      tests. In exceptional cases, competitions may be based on                (b) When it has examined all the application forms, the
      qualifications only.                                                         selection board will inform candidates by letter
                                                                                whether or not they have been admitted to the
      The competition procedure is as follows:                                     competition.
                                                                               (c) In the letter stating that they have been admitted to
      (a)   candidates must complete and sign the official                         the competition, candidates will be asked to attend
            application form. It is essential that they provide                    the tests; the date and the venue for the tests will be
            copies of supporting documents and any necessary                       specified in the letter.
            additional information by the deadline specified in
            the notice of competition;                                         (d) Candidates not admitted to the tests will be told
                                                                                why.
      (b) a selection board is set up for each competition; it                     Candidates who feel that a mistake has been made
            consists of members designated by the appointing                       regarding eligibility have 30 days from the date
            authority and by the Staff Committee; since selection                  postmarked on the letter stating that they have been
            board members are not released from their usual                        excluded from the competition in which to ask for
            duties, a certain amount of time will necessarily                      their application to be reconsidered.
            elapse before the names of candidates admitted to                      The selection board will then reconsider the appli-
            the tests and the results of the tests are known;                      cation and decide whether the complaint is justified.
                                                                               (e) Most applications are made by candidates who
      (c)   the proceedings of the selection board are secret;                     omitted to enclose supporting documents relating
            candidates are not entitled to contact it or to see                    to their professional experience or who enclosed
            their papers after they have been marked;                              insufficiently detailed evidence to enable the selec-
                                                                                tion board to assess how much, what kind or what
      (d) the appointing authority draws up a list of candi-                       level of experience they possessed. A curriculum
            dates who satisfy the general conditions laid down                     vitae is not regarded as a supporting document.
            in the Staff Regulations (1) and submitted their
                                                                               (f) The fact that a candidate has not been admitted to a
            application in time, and sends it to the selection
                                                                                given competition does not prevent his candidature
            board with the candidates’ files;
                                                                                from being taken into consideration for another.
                                                                          4.   Written tests
(1) In order to qualify for appointment as an official in an institution
    of the European Union, you must be a national of one of
                                                                               (a) The organisation of the written tests depends on the
    the Member States (unless the appointing authority makes an                    examination rooms available in the various Member
    exception in your favour) and enjoy your full rights as a citizen.             States. The place where candidates are invited to
    You must also have fulfilled any obligations imposed by the laws               attend depends on their country of residence. Some-
    concerning military service and meet the character requirements                times, however, the tests are held only in Luxem-
    for the duties involved.                                                       bourg or in some other convenient place.
 ---pagebreak--- 5.12.2000            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 348 A/5
     (b) Candidates invited to attend the written tests are                  (b) Candidates are informed by letter whether or not
         given full details of the date, time and place of the                    they have been placed on the list of suitable
         tests.                                                                   candidates.
     (c) A flat-rate contribution is made towards the travel-                (c)  Candidates should note that inclusion on the
         ling expenses of candidates who have to travel                           reserve list does not necessarily lead to appoint-
         further than 300 kilometres (one way) to the exam-                       ment.
         ination centre. It is stressed that this is a flat-rate
         contribution and not full reimbursement of the                           The list is known as the ‘reserve list’ because it is on
         travelling expenses.                                                     the basis of that list that successful candidates may
                                                                                be offered a post. Offers are made depending on
     (d) The written tests will take place simultaneously for                     requirements and the availability of posts commen-
         all candidates at all the centres on the date indicated                  surate with the qualifications of the successful
         in the letter of invitation to attend. No exception to                   candidates.
         this can be allowed.
     (e) Irrespective of the type of diploma or certificate                       However, in view of budgetary and operational
         required for admission to a given competition,                           constraints, successful candidates should note that
         candidates should note that the written and oral                         some time many elapse between being placed on
         tests presuppose a thorough knowledge of the                             the reserve list and receiving a definite job offer.
         subject(s) or area(s) described in the notice of
                                                                                In addition, reserve lists may be used to take
         competition (Section I. Nature of duties). The
         specialised knowledge needed to pass the tests                           on temporary or auxiliary staff depending on the
         should not therefore be underestimated.                                  budgetary funds available.
     (f) The test papers are not identified by the candidates’               (d) Successful candidates must also undergo a medical
         names and so there is no possibility of candidates’                      examination as laid down in the Staff Regulations in
         being identified by the examiners or the selection                       order to make sure they are physically fit to perform
         board.                                                                   the duties in question.
     (g) After the written and/or typewritten tests have been                (e)  Before the successful candidates are appointed as
         marked, the selection board draws up the list of                         probationary officials, a check will be carried out to
         candidates who are to be invited to attend for the                       ensure that they:
         oral test.
                                                                                —    are nationals of one of the Member States of
5.   Oral test                                                                         the European Union and enjoy their full rights
                                                                                as citizens,
     (a) Candidates are given details of the date, time and
         place of the oral test in the letter inviting them to                    —    have fulfilled any obligations imposed on them
         attend. Oral tests are normally held in Luxembourg.                           by the laws concerning military service in the
         Candidates will be given a contribution towards their                         country of which they are nationals,
         travelling and subsistence expenses as determined by
         the rules applicable to the Court.                                       —    meet the character requirements for the duties
                                                                                involved,
     (b) Most of the interview will be conducted in the
         candidate’s main language and simultaneous                               —    satisfy the requirements as to physical fitness
         interpretation is available if necessary.                                     for the duties to be performed (medical examin-
         The purpose of the oral test is to assess, first, the                         ation),
         candidate’s professional knowledge and, secondly,
                                                                                —    have produced the originals of their diplomas
         his fitness to carry out in an institution of the
                                                                                or certificates.
         European Union the duties attached to the category
         of post for which the competition was held.
     (c) During the test, the selection board will also assess            D.    CAREER PROGRESSION AND WORKING CONDITIONS
         knowledge of other official languages of the Euro-
         pean Union by asking the candidate to reply to
                                                                       1.    Categories of post
         questions in a language or languages other than
         his/her main language.
                                                                             All posts in the institutions of the European Union,
6.   Reserve list                                                            whether permanent or temporary, are classified as fol-
                                                                             lows:
     (a) Once the selection board has completed its deliber-
         ations, it draws up a list of candidates deemed                     (a)  Category A: staff who have completed a course
         suitable for the posts to be filled. In accordance with                  of university education and obtained a degree or
         the Staff Regulations every attempt is made to                           diploma, engaged in administrative and advisory
         ensure that the number of candidates on the list                         duties in areas of activity falling within the com-
         exceeds the number of posts available.                                   petence of departments of the institutions.
 ---pagebreak--- C 348 A/6            EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    5.12.2000
         Category A runs from grade A 8 up to A 3 and is                          The period is nine months for officials in category A,
         divided into four career brackets: A 8 (Assistant                        the Language Service and category B, and six months
         Administrator), A 7/6 (Administrator), A 5/4 (Prin-                      for other officials.
         cipal Administrator) and A 3 (Head of Division).
         Language service (LA): Staff who have completed a               2.   Remuneration and other special conditions
         course of university education and obtained a degree
         or diploma, working as translators and/or                            (a) Salary: the basic monthly salary for the career
         interpreters; the LA structure corresponds to grades                     bracket covered by the competition is given in
         A 8 to A 3 of category A above.                                          the notice of competition. The basic salary varies
                                                                                according to step classification on recruitment.
         The Language Service comprises four career
         brackets: LA 8 (Assistant translator, Assistant                      (b) Allowances: in addition to basic salary, the person
         interpreter), LA 7/6 (Lawyer-linguist/interpreter),                      appointed will receive the allowances to which
         LA 5/4 (Reviser, Principal Lawyer-linguist, Principal                    he/she is entitled under the Staff Regulations. These
         interpreter) and LA 3 (Head of Translation or                            may include the following:
         Interpretation Division).
                                                                                1.   daily subsistence allowance (payable for a lim-
         NB: The linguistic duties specified above require a                           ited period);
         perfect command of mother tongue or main
         language and a good knowledge of at least two other                      2.   expatriation allowance or foreign residence
         official languages of the European Union.                                     allowance equivalent to 16 % and 4 % of basic
                                                                                salary respectively;
    (b) Category B: staff who have completed a course of
         advanced secondary education and obtained a final
         certificate or diploma, engaged in executive duties                      and the following family allowances:
         (comparable with those performed by an executive
         officer, administrative assistant, etc.).                                1.   household allowance equivalent to 5 % of basic
                                                                                salary;
         Category B runs from grade B 5 up to B 1.
                                                                                2.   monthly dependent child allowance;
         Category B breaks down as follows: B 5/4 (Adminis-
         trative assistant), B 3/2 (Senior administrative assist-                 3.   education allowance equal to actual education
         ant), and B 1 (Principal administrative assistant).                           costs incurred, with a monthly ceiling, for each
                                                                                dependent child.
    (c)  Category C: staff who have completed a course of
         secondary education and/or a course of vocational
                                                                              (c) Deductions: officials qualify for a pension scheme
         education at secondary level and obtained a certifi-
                                                                                and sickness and accident insurance. Officials’ con-
         cate or diploma, engaged in clerical duties (compar-
                                                                                tributions to these schemes are deducted from their
         able with those performed by a secretary, filing
                                                                                remuneration.
         clerk, technician, etc.).
         Category C runs from grade C 5 up to C 1.                            (d) Taxes: the remuneration of officials of the European
                                                                                Communities is subject to a tax deducted at source.
         Category C breaks down as follows: C 5/4 (Clerical                       The proceeds of the tax are paid into the budget of
         assistant, Typist), C 3/2 (Clerical officer, Secretary/                  the European Union.
         typist), and C 1 (Executive secretary, Principal sec-
         retary, Principal clerical officer).                                     The overall amount of the tax raised reduces the
                                                                                financial contribution of the Member States to the
    (d) Category D: staff who have completed the basic                            budget of the European Union accordingly. For that
         course of ‘compulsory’ and/or vocational education                       reason, under Article 13(2) of the Protocol on
         and obtained a certificate or diploma, engaged                           the Privileges and Immunities of the European
         in manual or service duties (messenger, driver,                          Communities, remuneration is exempt from
         storeman, workshop staff, etc.).                                         national tax.
         Category D runs from grade D 4 up to D 1.
                                                                              (e) Social environment: there are European Schools at
         Category D breaks down as follows: D 4 (Unskilled                        most of the main places of activity of the Com-
         employee, Unskilled worker), D 3/2 (Skilled                              munity institutions, providing primary and second-
         employee, Skilled worker), and D 1 (Head of Unit).                       ary education up to the level of the European
                                                                                baccalaureate. The schools, which have sections for
    (e)  Officials other than those in grades A 1 and A 2                         each of the main teaching languages, are recognised
         serve a probationary period, which must be satisfac-                     by all 15 Member States. There are also crèches for
         torily completed before they can be established.                         children under school age.


title: ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 17 May 1995 in Case T-102/95 R: Jean-Pierre Aubineau v. Commission of the European Communities

text:
8 . 7 . 95             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 174/7
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  Nicolas Lhoëst, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
                        of 30 May 1995                                   service in Luxembourg at the office of Fiduciaire Myson, 1
                                                                         Rue Glesener, against the Commission of the European
in Case T-556/93 : Monique Saby v. Commission of the                     Communities ( Agent: Gianluigi Valsesia ) — application for,
                  European Communities (')                               first, the annulment of the Commission's decision of
(Officials — Accidents and professional diseases —                       1 7 August 1993 not to reimburse the excess baggage charges
Reopening of the accident file and full reimbursement of                 incurred by the applicant's wife on a journey by air between
                       medical expenses)                                 the applicant's place of origin and place of work, and ,
                           ( 95 /C 174/ 11 )                             secondly, an order that the Commission reimburse those
                                                                         charges, the Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber ),
               (Language of the case: French)                            composed of: K. Lenaerts ( President of the Chamber ), R.
                                                                         Schintgen and R. Garcia-Valdecasas , Judges; B. Pastor,
In Case T-556/93 : Monique Saby, a former official of the                Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 May 1995 , the operative
Commission of the European Communities, represented by                   part of which is as follows:
Mérète Turlin and Aloyse May, of the Luxembourg Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at their
Chambers, 31 Grand-Rue, v. Commission of the European                    1 . the Commission decision of 17 August 1993 is
Communities ( Agents : Ana Maria Alves Vieira and Alberto                     annulled;
Dal Ferro ) — application, primarily, for the annulment of
the decision of the Commission of 3 August 1993 rejecting                2 . the Commission is ordered to pay the applicant Bfrs
the complaint submitted by the applicant on 3 May 1993 , in                   22 800, together with interest of 8% per annum, as
which she sought the reopening of her ' accident file ' and full              from 17 August 1993 until the date of effective
reimbursement, pursuant to Article 73 of the Staff                            payment;
Regulations of officials of the European Communities , of
the medical and paramedical expenses incurred in respect of              3.   the Commission shall hear all the costs .
the care needed for her re-establishment and rehabilitation,
together with default interest at the rate of 8,5 % per annum
from 1 July 1991 ; alternatively, for the setting-up of a new            (') OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .
medical committee with the task of taking a decision on the
causal connection between the care in question and the
accident justifying full reimbursement of the medical and
paramedical expenses relating to it and the award of the
compensation provided for by Article 73 of the Staff
Regulations — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber ),
composed of: J. L. Cruz Vilaça , President, and A.
Kalogeropoulos and V. Tiili, Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez,
                                                                                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                                OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
30 May 1995 , in which it :
                                                                                of 17 May 1995
 1 . dismisses the application ;                                         in Case T-102/95 R: Jean-Pierre Aubineau v. Commission
2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs.                                           of the European Communities
                                                                                ( 95/C 174/ 13 )
 (') OJ No C 334 , 9 . 12 . 1993 .
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  In Case T-102/95 R: Jean-Pierre Aubineau, a member of the
                        of 17 May 1995                                    temporary staff of the Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges
 in Case T-241/94 , Friedrich Nagel v. Commission of the                  Vandersanden and Laure Levi , of the Brussels Bar, v.
                  European Communities (')
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities ( Agents : Joseph
 (Officials — Annual leave — Travel expenses — Excess                     Griesmar and Denis Waelbroeck ) — application for
                        baggage charges)                                  suspension of the implementation of the decision of the
                            ( 95 /C 174/ 12 )                             Director-General of the Joint Research Centre, Ispra,
                                                                          contained in his note of 27 February 1995 , compulsorily
                (Language of the case: French)                            transferring the applicant to Ispra as Adviser to the Head of
                                                                          the Institute for Systems Engineering and Informatics — the
 In Case T-241 /94 : Friedrich Nagel, official of the                     President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
 Commission of the European Communities, represented by                   17 May 1995 , the operative part of which is as follows :
 ---pagebreak--- No C 174/8         | EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                        8 . 7 . 95
1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;                  undermine the objectives of the Community's policy on
                                                                        improved access to Community documents . Thus, if the
2.  the costs are reserved.
                                                                        Commission invokes an exception to the general access
                                                                        to its documents , it must establish the ' imperative
                                                                        reasons ' for which the conditions laid down in the
                                                                        exception clause are fulfilled, and deal with the
                                                                        particularities of the case and with the contents of the
                                                                        documents to which access is required .
                                                                        The applicant states that the Commission invoked two
Action brought on 18 April 1995 by WWF UK (World Wide                   reasons for its refusal to grant access to the documents in
Fund for Nature ) against the Commission of the European                question : its interest in the confidentiality of its
                         Communities
                                                                        proceedings and the protection of the public interest, in
                      ( Case T-105/95 )                                 particular, the ability of the Commission to conduct
                        ( 95/C 174/ 14 )                                infringement proceedings . However, the Commission
                                                                        did not provide any ' imperative reasons ' for which the
                                                                        disclosure of the documents in question would affect the
              (Language of the case: English)                           protection of its interest in the confidentiality of its
                                                                        proceedings ; and , as regards the second reason, the
An action against the Commission of the European                        Commission did not deal with the particularities of the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                       case : its reasoning consists entirely of general statements
Instance of the European Communities on 1 8 April 1995 by               which, if correct, would apply to all infringement
WWF UK ( World Wide Fund for Nature ), represented by Dr                proceedings . The applicant maintains therefore that the
Georg M. Berrisch, with an address for service in                       Commission wrongly invoked the exception clause in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Turk et Prum, Avenue                      the Code of conduct and that, accordingly, the contested
Guillaume 13 B, L-1651 Luxembourg.                                      decision constitutes the most extensive breach possible
                                                                        for the applicant's right of access to Commission
                                                                        documents .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                    2 . Insufficient reasoning — Infringement of Article 190 of
— annul the decision of the European Commission                         the EC Treaty
    contained in a letter of 2 February 1995 from the
    Secretary-General of the European Communities to
    counsel for the applicant by which the Secretary-General            The applicant states that Article 190 requires that the
    confirmed the refusal of the Directors-General of DG XI             Community institutions must provide reasoning for
    and DG XVI to grant the applicant access to                         their decisions . The main purpose of this provision is to
    Commission documents relating to the examination of                 make judicial review of such decisions possible . In this
    the Mullaghmore project, and in particular to the                   respect, the duty to provide sufficient reasoning serves to
    examination of whether structural funds may be used                 protect the rights of defence of those concerned by the
                                                                        decision .
    for the project, and
— order the Commission to pay the costs of these                        The applicant emphasizes that the reasoning of the
    proceedings .                                                       contested decision does not deal with the particularities
                                                                        of the case . It consists only of broad statements and it
                                                                        does not suffice to justify the conclusion that the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     Commission was entitled to refuse to make public the
                                                                        documents in question .
The applicant submits that the contested decision must be
annulled for two reasons :
1 . Violation of the ' Code of conduct concerning public
    access to Commission and Council documents ' ( the
    ' Code of conduct') and of Decision 94/90/ECSC , EC,
    Euratom of 8 February 1994 on public access to                  Action brought on 28 April 1995 by X against the
    Commission documents ( the 'adopting Decision ').                       Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case T-109/95 )
    The applicant maintains that the Code of conduct and
    the adopting Decision are legally binding on the                                          ( 95/C 174/ 15
    Commission and that they impose upon it an obligation
    to grant, to the widest extent possible, access to its                           (Language of the case: English)
    documents . This obligation is the corollary of a right
    enjoyed by natural and legal persons in the Community.
    The exception clause in the Code of conduct must be             An action against the Commission of the European
    interpreted strictly and its application may not                Communities was brought before the Court of First


title: Action brought on 4 January 1999 by Pantelis N. Andriotis against the European Commission and the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (CEDEFOP) (Case T-5/99)

text:
13.3.1999             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 71/37
Action brought on 4 January 1999 by Pantelis N.                    Action brought on 15 January 1999 by NV Firma LeÂon
Andriotis against the European Commission and the                  Van Parys, NV Pacific Fruit Company, Pacific
European Centre for the Development of Vocational                  Fruchtimport GmbH and Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA
                     Training (CEDEFOP)                               against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-5/99)                                                    (Case T-11/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 71/69)
                        (1999/C 71/68)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                (Language of the case: Greek)                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                   Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities on 15 January
An action against the European Commission and the                  1999 by NV Firma LeÂon Van Parys and NV Pacific Fruit
European Centre for the Development of Vocational                  Company, both established in Antwerp (Belgium), Pacific
Training (hereinafter CEDEFOP') was brought before the            Fruchtimport GmbH, established in Hamburg (Germany),
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on             and Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA, established in Rome
4 January 1999 by Pantelis N. Andriotis, architect-                (Italy), all represented by P. Vlaemminck, L. Van Den
engineer, resident in Thessaloniki, represented by Stella          Hende and J. Holmens, of the Ghent Bar, with an address
Ioannidou, of the Thessaloniki Bar, with an address for            for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch,
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyn Korn,              of Messrs Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe.
21 Rue de Nassau, L-2113.
                                                                   The applicants claim that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        (1) annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 of
                                                                        28 October 1998 laying down detailed rules for the
                                                                        implementation of Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                        No 404/93 regarding imports of bananas into the
Ð find the action admissible;                                           Community.
                                                                   (2) order the defendant to pay the costs.
Ð order the defendants to inform him in writing either of
    the precise notification in the Official Journal of the        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    results of procedure APO/97/005 or that there has
    been no such notification;                                     Ð The changes introduced and implemented by the
                                                                        contested regulation are in breach of the GATS
                                                                        agreement and the GATT 1994 agreement, the
Ð order the defendants to pay his costs.                                intention of the Community being to adapt itself
                                                                        thereto; they also violate the agreement between the
                                                                        EC and the members of the Cartagena Group, the
                                                                        principle of the protection of legitimate expectations,
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     the principle of good faith in public international law,
                                                                        the customary rules of international law as codified in
                                                                        the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the
The applicant took part in award procedure APO/97/005                   binding effect of an award made in arbitration
of which CEDEFOP gave notice in July 1997 (1). In                       proceedings provided for in an international agreement
November 1997 he found out that the contract had been                   concluded by the Community. Those violations result
awarded to another candidate. However, notice of that                   both from Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 itself and
award was never published, even though such publication                 from Council Regulation (EC) No 1637/98 amending
is mandatory under Articles 16 and 17 of Council                        Regulation (EEC) No 404/93, which constitutes the
Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the                     legal basis of the regulation contested in the present
coordination of procedures for the award of public service              case.
contracts (2).
                                                                   Ð The Commission has exceeded its executive powers by
                                                                        laying down rules for the implementation of
In the applicant's view, the decision by CEDEFOP                        Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 which conflict with
awarding the contract was biased and, furthermore, when                 GATS and GATT 1994.
the contract was signed, the selected contractor was
replaced in an impermissible and unlawful manner.                  Ð Breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
                                                                        expectations and of the general legal principle patere
                                                                        legem quam ipse fecisti', in that the Commission has
(1) OJ S 139, 19.7.1997, p. 44.                                         not issued import licences to the actual importer', in
(2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 1.                                          accordance with the declaration made by it to the
                                                                        Council.


title: Case T-291/10: Action brought on 26 June 2010 — Martin v Commission

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/51

         Action brought on 26 June 2010 — Martin v Commission
   (Case T-291/10)
   ()
   2010/C 234/90
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: Anne Martin (Brussels, Belgium), (represented by: U. O’Dwyer, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the implied Decision of the Commission of 20 April 2010 to refuse confirmatory access to the applicant’s 4 March 2010 request for access to documents;

               —

               Order for the Commission to comply with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents within the time-limits as deemed appropriate by the Court; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By means of the present application, the applicant seeks, pursuant to Article 263 TFUE, the annulment of the implied Decision of the Commission of 20 April 2010, whereby the latter failed to respond to the applicant’s confirmatory access to documents application to the Secretariat General of the Commission under Article 7(2) of Regulation 1049/2001 re-stating her original access to documents request of 22 December 2009 by the deadline of 20 April 2010.
   In support of his appeal, the applicant submits the following pleas in law:
   The failure of the Commission to take a decision by the time limit of 20 April 2010 imposed on it by Regulation 1049/2001 constitutes an implied refusal of the confirmatory access to document request of 4 March 2010 of the Applicant and is in breach of Article 8(1) of the said regulation and Article 296 TFEU for failing to state adequate reasons for the refusal.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).


title: Joined Cases C-483/09 and C-1/10: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Tarragona — Spain) — Criminal proceedings against Magatte Gueye and Valentín Salmerón Sánchez (Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA — Standing of victims in criminal proceedings — Domestic crimes — Obligation to impose as an ancillary penalty an injunction prohibiting the offender from approaching the victim of the offence — Choice of forms of penalty and level of penalty — Compatibility with Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the Framework Decision — Provision of national law excluding mediation in criminal cases — Compatibility with Article 10 of the Framework Decision)

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/5

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 15 September 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Tarragona — Spain) — Criminal proceedings against Magatte Gueye and Valentín Salmerón Sánchez
   (Joined Cases C-483/09 and C-1/10) (1)

   (Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA - Standing of victims in criminal proceedings - Domestic crimes - Obligation to impose as an ancillary penalty an injunction prohibiting the offender from approaching the victim of the offence - Choice of forms of penalty and level of penalty - Compatibility with Articles 2, 3 and 8 of the Framework Decision - Provision of national law excluding mediation in criminal cases - Compatibility with Article 10 of the Framework Decision)
   2011/C 319/06
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Audiencia Provincial de Tarragona

      Parties in the main proceedings

                  Magatte Gueye (C-483/09)

               intervener: X

                  Valentín Salmerón Sánchez (C-1/10)

               intervener: Y

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Audiencia Provincial de Tarragona — Interpretation of Articles 2, 8 and 10 of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings (OJ 2001 L 82, p. 1) — Respect for and recognition of victims — Right to protection — Mediation in criminal proceedings — Agreement between victim and offender

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court rules:

               1.

               Articles 2, 3 and 8 of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings must be interpreted as not precluding the mandatory imposition of an injunction to stay away for a minimum period, provided for as an ancillary penalty by the criminal law of a Member State, on persons who commit crimes of violence within the family, even when the victims of those crimes oppose the application of such a penalty.

               2.

               Article 10(1) of Framework Decision 2001/220 must be interpreted as permitting Member States, having regard to the particular category of offences committed within the family, to exclude recourse to mediation in all criminal proceedings relating to such offences.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.

      OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.