You are on page 1of 2

15.8.

98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 258/13

Appeal brought on 17 April 1998 by SocieÂte GueÂrin Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du
Automobiles EURL against the order delivered on Fort Rheinsheim.
13 February 1998 by the Third Chamber of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities in Case
T-276/97 between SocieÂte GueÂrin Automobiles EURL and The appellant claims that the Court should:
the Commission of the European Communities
(Case C-154/98 P) set aside the order made on 13 February 1998 by the First
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
(98/C 258/23) Communities in Case T-195/96 Alexopoulou v
Commission of the European Communities (1), by which it
dismissed the action brought by the appellant;
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 February
1998 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance make the following declarations and rulings, as the Court
of the European Communities in Case T-276/97 between of First Instance should have done:
SocieÂte GueÂrin Automobiles EURL and the Commission of
the European Communities was brought before the Court
of Justice of the European Communities on 17 April 1998 Ð annul the Decision of the appointing authority
by SocieÂte GueÂrin Automobiles EURL, represented by rejecting the applicant's request, classifying her in
Jean-Claude Fourgous, of the Paris and Brussels Bar, with Grade A7, step 5, and implicitly refusing to appoint
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of her to grade A6;
Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue BeÂatrix de Bourbon.
Ð annul the decision of the appointing authority of
28 August 1996 rejecting the appellant's request of
The appellant claims that the Court should:
3 April 1996;

Ð set aside the Order of the Court of First Instance of Ð order the appointing authority to pay to the appellant
the European Communities of 13 February 1998; the sum of BFR 250 000 by way of provisional
compensation for the damage suffered by her as a
result of the loss of her chances of promotion to grade
Ð orders the Commission to pay the costs. A5; order the appointing authority to calculate the
salary which the appellant would have received if she
had been promoted to grade A5 with effect from
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: 1 December 1995; and order it to pay the amount
thus calculated, together with default interest from
1 December 1995, subject to deduction therefrom of
the sum of BFR 250 000 claimed above;
The pleas in law and main arguments are identical with
those in Case C-153/98 P.
Ð orders the appointing authority to pay all the costs,
including those relating to the proceedings at first
instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Appeal brought on 21 April 1998 by Spyridoula
Alexopoulou against the Order made on 13 February Ð Failure to provide a statement of reasons and
1998 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance infringement of Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure
of the European Communities in Case T-195/96 between of the Court of First Instance: it is not possible to
Spyridoula Alexopoulou and the Commission of the deduce from the scheme of the contested order the
European Communities reasons for which the Court of First Instance held that
the action was manifestly' unfounded, or to tell
(Case C-155/98 P)
whether the Court of First Instance intended to dismiss
(98/C 258/24) it as unfounded or as inadmissible. The order does not
state that the views of the Advocate General were
heard. Lastly, it deals jointly with the issues of
classification and promotion, without stating any
An appeal against the Order made on 13 February 1998 reasons for so doing.
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-195/96 between
Spyridoula Alexopoulou and the Commission of the Ð Failure to take full account of Article 31 of the Staff
European Communities was brought before the Court of Regulations of Officials: by adding a two fold
Justice of the European Communities on 21 April 1998 by criterion governing exceptions to Article 31, the
Spyridoula Alexopoulou, represented by Olivier Slusny, of contested order purported to lay down, as a matter of
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in law, conditions which that article does not contain.
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