Judgment_paragraph 40 · Sonja Hosman-Chevalier v European Commission (T-72/04)

40That argument is, as was just stated, effectively based on matters deriving from Austrian national law and, for that reason, it runs counter to the requirement for a uniform application of Community law and the principle of equality which require that the terms of a provision of Community law which makes no express reference to the law of the Member States for the purpose of determining its meaning and scope must normally be given an independent and uniform interpretation throughout the Community; that interpretation must take into account the context of the provision and the purpose of the relevant regulations. In the absence of an express reference, the application of Community law may sometimes necessitate a reference to the laws of the Member States where the Community court cannot identify in Community law or in the general principles of Community law criteria enabling it to define the meaning and scope of such a provision by way of independent interpretation (Case 327/82 Ekro [1984] ECR 107, paragraph 11, Case T-43/90 Diaz Garcia v Parliament [1992] ECR II-2619, paragraph 36, Case T-264/97 D v Council [1999] ECR-SC I-A-l and II-1, paragraphs 26 and 27, upheld in D and Sweden v Council, cited above). In the present case, the reference to Austrian law is not necessary since it is not disputed that a Permanent Representation of a Member State to the European Union is amongst those State bodies falling within the scope of Article 4(l)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.

Sonja Hosman-Chevalier v European Commission (T-72/04)

Key facts

Connections

History · 1 version