C 202/30 EN 24.8.2002 Official Journal of the European Communities
Action brought on 4 June 2002 by Internationaler Tier- According to the applicant, the contested Decision also
infringes Article 4 of the Regulation taken as a whole. The schutz-Fonds (IFAW) GmbH against the Commission of
the European Communities applicant claims that the purpose of the consultation of the
German authorities was to enable the Commission to make an
assessment whether an exception under Article 4(1) or 4(2)
(Case T-168/02) was applicable. However, such an assessment was apparently
not made by the Commission. Instead, the Commission
indicated that a Member State has the right to veto access to(2002/C 202/49)documents emanating from it, which results, according to the
applicant, in a reintroduction of the ‘authorship rule’.
(Language of the case: English)
The applicant claims furthermore that the contested Decision
does not set out adequate reasons for refusing access and
therefore infringes Article 253 of the EC Treaty. There is alsono reasoning as to why partial access to the documents wasAn action against the Commission of the European Communi-denied.ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 4 June 2002 by Internationaler
Tierschutz-Fonds (IFAW) GmbH, represented by Scott Crosby,The applicant finally indicates that there is a clear publicSolicitor.interest in the disclosure of those documents since the project
leading to the destruction of Mühlenberger Loch was the
subject of much public and media comment. Therefore, the
The applicant claims that the Court should: public should have knowledge of the facts underpinning the
Opinion of the Commission authorising the declassification of
Mühlenberger Loch in order to understand how that accords — annul the Decision of the Commission of 26 March 2002
with environmental objectives and principles. refusing access to the documents held by the Commission
authored by the German authorities relating to the
expansion of the existing Daimler Chrysler Aerospace
(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament andGmbH plant on the Elbe in Hamburg for the finalof the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access toassembly of the Airbus A3XX on an area intended for theEuropean Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJNatura 2000 network, as the same were identified in theL 145, 31.5.2001 p. 43).applicant’s initial application of 20 December 2001 inCategory B of Annex III to that application;
— order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments Action brought on 29 May 2002 by Maria Rosaria
Ragazzini against European Parliament
The applicant sought access to certain documents concerning(Case T-170/02)
the Opinion of the Commission of 19 April 2002 authorising
Germany to declassify the Mühlenberger Loch, an area protect-
(2002/C 202/50) ed under Council Directive 92/43/EEC as part of the Natura
2000 network. The applicant obtained access to part of these
documents. Access to the documents authored by the German(Language of the case: French)authorities and in the possession of the Commission was,
however, refused by the contested Decision following a requestto that effect made by the German authorities.
An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
29 May 2002 by Maria Rosaria Ragazzini, residing in Faenza The applicant claims that the contested Decision constitutes a
(Italy), represented by Georges Vandersanden, Laure Levi and breach of Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 (
1). According
Aurore Finchelstein, lawyers. to the applicant, Article 4(5) of the Regulation has been
misinterpreted by the Commission. The applicant claims that,
according to the plain meaning of the words used, a request
The applicant claims that the Court should: by a third party does not place the Commission under
an absolute obligation to comply with that request in all
circumstances. The Commission indicated however in its — annul the decision of the appointing authority of 20 Feb-
ruary 2002 not to grant her the benefit of Article 73 of Decision that Member States have a right of veto under
Article 4(5) of the Regulation. the Staff Regulations;
24.8.2002 EN C 202/31 Official Journal of the European Communities
— order payment of default interest at the rate of 5,75 % The applicant claims that the Court should:
with effect from 26 January 1988, the date of theaccident, on the capital amount payable under Article 73 — annul the ECB performance appraisal of the applicant for
of the Staff Regulations; the year 2001;
— make an order for damages in the amount of— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.EUR 138 358,88 as compensation for the material and
non-material damage which the contested decision caused
to the applicant, such amount being provisional, subject
to increasing it in respect of the material damage, and asPleas in law and main argumentsequitable compensation for the non-material damage;
— order the defendant to pay all the costs.The applicant, an employee of the defendant, seeks the
annulment of his performance appraisal for 2001. He con-siders that appraisal to be an act adversely affecting him
Pleas in law and main arguments because the defendant did not confine itself to appraising his
performance. Instead, the defendant based the appraisal onfactual allegations which the applicant contests and which willFollowing the injuries suffered by the applicant in relation toimpair his future career development.giving birth in 1988, the defendant, first, took the view that
the cause of the injuries was not accidental and, secondly,
acknowledged that the applicant was suffering from totalThe applicant claims that, under the provisions on datapermanent invalidity, rendering it impossible for her to work.protection, the defendant is prohibited from relying on
electronically collected data and that that is, in itself, a sufficient
ground for annulment of the appraisal based on that data. The applicant claims that a new fact has arisen, enabling her
Moreover, the appraisal must be annulled on the ground that to request afresh that she be accorded the benefit of Article 73
it is based on incorrect factual information. of the Staff Regulations by regarding those injuries as the result
of an accident. According to the applicant, the findings of theMedical Committee in 1988 do not reflect her current medical
circumstances, since the sequelae have continued to wreak an
effect and worsened over the years. Furthermore, the com-
mittee did not examine the applicant’s situation with regard to
the medical accident. According to the applicant, since her
injuries were linked to the medical accident, they ought to beregarded as accidental.
Action brought on 13 June 2002 by Neue Erba LautexGmbH Weberei und Veredlung against the CommissionAccordingly, by deciding to reject the request, the defendantof the European Communitiesinfringed Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and the Rules on
Sickness Insurance for Officials of the European Communities
and, in particular, Articles 12, 14 and 22 thereof. Furthermore, (Case T-181/02)
the applicant alleges breach of the duty to have regard to the
welfare of officials.(2002/C 202/52)
(Language of the Case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi- Action brought on 12 June 2002 by Jan Pflugradt against
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 13 June the European Central Bank
2002 by Neue Erba Lautex GmbH Weberei und Veredlung,
Neugersdorf (Germany), represented by Professor U. Ehricke,(Case T-179/02)with an address for service in Luxembourg.
(2002/C 202/51)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
(Language of the case: German)
— Annul the Commission Decision (C(2002)944 fin) of
12 March 2002 concerning State aid by the Federal
Republic in favour of Neue Erba Lautex GmbH and Erba An action against the European Central Bank was brought
Lautex GmbH in liquidation; before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 12 June 2002 by Jan Pflugradt, represented by N. Pflüger,lawyer. — Order the defendant to pay the costs.