# C_2006131EN.01003401.xml

| 3.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/34

---

Appeal brought on 29 March 2006 by Ermioni Komninou, Grigorios Dokos, Donatos Pappas, Vasilios Pappas, Aristidis Pappas, Eleftheria Pappa, Lamprini Pappa, Irini Pappa, Alexandra Dokou, Fotios Dimitriou, Zoi Dimitriou, Petros Bolosis, Despina Bolosi, Konstantinos Bolosis and Thomas Bolosis against the order made by the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) on 13 January 2006 in Case T-42/04 Komninou and Others v Commission

(Case C-167/06 P)

(2006/C 131/64)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Appellants: Ermioni Komninou, Grigorios Dokos, Donatos Pappas, Vasilios Pappas, Aristidis Pappas, Eleftheria Pappa, Lamprini Pappa, Irini Pappa, Alexandra Dokou, Fotios Dimitriou, Zoi Dimitriou, Petros Bolosis, Despina Bolosi, Konstantinos Bolosis and Thomas Bolosis (represented by: G. Dellis, dikigoros)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

| — | Allow the present application; |
| --- | --- |

—

Allow the present application;

| — | set aside the order appealed against, made by the Court of First Instance on 13 January 2006 in Case T-42/04; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the order appealed against, made by the Court of First Instance on 13 January 2006 in Case T-42/04;

| — | rule on the appellants' application of 10 February 2004, allow the application and order the European Commission to pay to each of the appellants the sum of EUR 200 000 together with statutory interest at the rate of 8 % from delivery of the Court's judgment until payment; |
| --- | --- |

—

rule on the appellants' application of 10 February 2004, allow the application and order the European Commission to pay to each of the appellants the sum of EUR 200 000 together with statutory interest at the rate of 8 % from delivery of the Court's judgment until payment;

| — | order the defendant to pay all the costs of the appellants at first instance and on appeal and, in the alternative, should the present appeal be dismissed, order the defendant to pay the costs or, at any rate, each party to bear his own costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all the costs of the appellants at first instance and on appeal and, in the alternative, should the present appeal be dismissed, order the defendant to pay the costs or, at any rate, each party to bear his own costs.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appeal in Case C-167/06 has been brought by 15 appellants, who reside in Parga (Prefecture of Preveza, Greece), against the order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 13 January 2006 in Case T-42/04. That order dismissed as clearly unfounded their action for compensation of 10 February 2004 brought against the Commission of the European Communities.

By their application of 10 February 2004 to the Court of First Instance of the European Communities, the appellants brought proceedings against the Commission for compensation in respect of the non-material damage suffered by them by reason of the Commission's conduct following their complaint of 7 July 2005 alleging that the Greek authorities had infringed Community environmental law, in particular Articles 3 and 5 of Directive 85/337, in relation to the design and construction of a biological sewage treatment plant at a place known as Varka.

They have submitted that the Commission's overall and continuous conduct in their regard amounts to a clear case of maladministration. In particular:

overall

continuous

| 1. | At an initial stage, the Commission (i) did not inform them in good time of progress with regard to the complaint, concealed information and misled them as to the progress of their case, (ii) rejected their complaint with a statement of reasons clearly contrary to Community environmental law and the Court's case-law and (iii) did not observe basic rules of impartiality in relation to the handling of the case by its officials. |
| --- | --- |

1.

At an initial stage, the Commission (i) did not inform them in good time of progress with regard to the complaint, concealed information and misled them as to the progress of their case, (ii) rejected their complaint with a statement of reasons clearly contrary to Community environmental law and the Court's case-law and (iii) did not observe basic rules of impartiality in relation to the handling of the case by its officials.

| 2. | Subsequently, after the aforementioned matters had been confirmed by decision of the Ombudsman, the Commission failed to take basic measures to make good the foregoing forms of maladministration. What is more, it has persisted in treating the appellants in a manner that is dilatory and lacks transparency: first, it has refused to admit the errors made by it to the appellants' detriment and, second, it has refused (both at the time when the action for compensation was brought and now) to examine the substance of their complaint and to ensure that Community law is interpreted uniformly and correctly. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Subsequently, after the aforementioned matters had been confirmed by decision of the Ombudsman, the Commission failed to take basic measures to make good the foregoing forms of maladministration. What is more, it has persisted in treating the appellants in a manner that is dilatory and lacks transparency: first, it has refused to admit the errors made by it to the appellants' detriment and, second, it has refused (both at the time when the action for compensation was brought and now) to examine the substance of their complaint and to ensure that Community law is interpreted uniformly and correctly.

The appellants have submitted in particular that, irrespective of whether or not the Commission's position on the application of Directive 85/337 is correct, the Commission has, by its conduct, flagrantly infringed its fundamental obligations to the appellants as European citizens and as persons subject to administrative authorities: it has infringed, in particular, the principles of good administration, impartiality, legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations, while it has also in fact infringed the right of complaint laid down for European citizens.

By the order under appeal, the Court of First Instance, without examining the admissibility of the action for compensation, applied Article 111 of its Rules of Procedure and held (i) that the action manifestly lacked any foundation in law and (ii) that it was not necessary for the proceedings before it to continue, in particular by means of the exchange of further pleadings and an oral procedure. It therefore dismissed the action in its entirety and ordered the appellants to bear not only their own costs but also the Commission's. Notice of the order was given to the lawyer acting for the appellants in the present case by registered letter of 25 January 2006.

The appellants consider the order to be wrong in law for the purposes of the second subparagraph of Article 225(1) of the EC Treaty and Article 58 of the Statute of the Court of Justice; the appeal against it, provided for in those articles and in Article 56 of the Statute, is admissible and has been brought within the time-limit and on the basis of a clear legal interest. In their appeal, the appellants seek to show the errors of law in the order.

Those errors concern:

| (i) | the fact that the Court of First Instance failed completely to examine the appellants' pleas and arguments relating to infringement of the right of complaint, as enshrined as an aspect of European citizenship; |
| --- | --- |

(i)

the fact that the Court of First Instance failed completely to examine the appellants' pleas and arguments relating to infringement of the right of complaint, as enshrined as an aspect of European citizenship;

| (ii) | the fact that the Court of First Instance in any event distorted the sense of the Ombudsman's decision of 18 July 2002, which constituted the most relevant item of evidence relied upon by the appellants in their action, or at any rate erred in the legal characterisation of that item of evidence; |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

the fact that the Court of First Instance in any event distorted the sense of the Ombudsman's decision of 18 July 2002, which constituted the most relevant item of evidence relied upon by the appellants in their action, or at any rate erred in the legal characterisation of that item of evidence;

| (iii) | the fact that the Court of First Instance interpreted and applied incorrectly the principles of good administration, impartiality and the protection of legitimate expectations, in certain instances distorted the sense of the evidence and in any event erred in the legal characterisation of the facts of the action which relate to the infringement of those principles; |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

the fact that the Court of First Instance interpreted and applied incorrectly the principles of good administration, impartiality and the protection of legitimate expectations, in certain instances distorted the sense of the evidence and in any event erred in the legal characterisation of the facts of the action which relate to the infringement of those principles;

| (iv) | the fact that the Court of First Instance failed to examine the action for compensation or, in any event, examined it in a deficient manner, inasmuch as it treated the Commission's conduct in question as a collection of isolated events separate from one another and not in an overall manner, despite the fact that the infringement of Community rules relied upon by the appellants and the damage suffered by them result principally from the overall stance of the Commission over a period of eight years. |
| --- | --- |

(iv)

the fact that the Court of First Instance failed to examine the action for compensation or, in any event, examined it in a deficient manner, inasmuch as it treated the Commission's conduct in question as a collection of isolated events separate from one another and not in an overall manner, despite the fact that the infringement of Community rules relied upon by the appellants and the damage suffered by them result principally from the overall stance of the Commission over a period of eight years.

More generally, the appellants consider that the Court of First Instance failed to draw the correct conclusions from the fundamental rule that the Commission is responsible for ensuring that procedures progress in a correct and lawful manner and in the event of error must bear the financial burden of maladministration. Furthermore, failure to observe the fundamental rules governing authorities' conduct can give rise to non-material harm in respect of which citizens may seek reparation and damages.

---