Case T-386/00: Action brought on 28 December 2000 by Margarida Gonçalves against the European Parliament
Date: 2001-02-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Parliament, European official, action for annulment (EU), competition (EU), regulations for civil servants

C 61/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

24.2.2001

— order that interest at the annual rate of 8 % or any other
appropriate rate to be determined by the Court be paid
on the amount payable as from the date of judgment;

— order the European Community, as represented here
by the Council of the European Union, the European
Parliament and the Commission of the European Com-
munities, to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case is a small well-established
firm in the business of high quality printing on folding carton
packaging for products such as cosmetics and fragances. The
market in question is to a great extent focused on the United
States both in terms of logistics and market share.

The applicant states that, as a result of the retaliatory measures
taken by the United States, and allowed by The Dispute
Settlement Body, because of the adoption by the European
Community of a scheme for importation of bananas that is to
be considered as contrary to the GATT and GATS, the United
States market has been entirely closed off, so that heavy
investments in capital adapted specifically to the needs of this
market have been rendered worthless. As a question of fact,
the sanctions in question have been applied to the applicant’s
products now for over 18 months, taking the form of 100 %
ad valorem duties.

The applicant submits that the Community’s maintenance in
place of an unlawful banana regime has caused it serious
damage which the Community has a duty to make good under
Article 288(2) C. In support of this claim the applicant submits
that the damage being caused to it is the direct result of the
Community’s unlawful failure to comply with its international
obligations.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— rule that the European Investment Bank is required to
reimburse to Mr Seiller the sum of LUF 4 779 652 in
respect of his pension rights;

— rule that that sum is to bear compound interest from
1 May 1993 at the annual rate fixed by the President of
the European Investment Bank;

— order the European Investment Bank to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case, having worked for the EIB,
submitted his resignation in April 1993, requesting that he
should not have to work his notice period. Thereafter, the
defendant and the applicant signed an agreement by which the
EIB was to pay to Mr Seiller a certain sum ‘in full and final
settlement, on a lump-sum basis, of all accounts due and in
satisfaction of all rights and claims, whether contractual or
extra-contractual, which you have or may have against the
Bank or any other Community body as at today’s date’.

The applicant maintains that the consent expressed by him in
that agreement is vitiated by the fact that, at the time when it
was signed, he did not have available to him all the information
necessary in order for him to be fully apprised. Thus, the sum
paid to him did not include the amount corresponding to the
reimbursement of his pension rights.

The applicant therefore seeks to challenge the sum expressed
to be in full and final settlement under the agreement signed
in April 1993.

Action brought on 27 December 2000 by Jean-Paul Seiller
against the European Investment Bank

Action brought on 28 December 2000 by Margarida
Gonçalves against the European Parliament

(Case T-385/00)

(2001/C 61/41)

(Language of the case: French)

(Case T-386/00)

(2001/C 61/42)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the European Investment Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
in
on 27 December 2000 by Jean-Paul Seiller, resident
Luxembourg, represented by Dominique Chouanier, of the
Paris Bar, and Lex Thielen, of the Luxembourg Bar.

An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
28 December 2000 by Margarida Gonçalves, residing in
Brussels, represented by Louis Tinti, of the Luxembourg Bar.

24.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 61/23

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the selection board rejecting the
application of the applicant in internal competition B/172
opened by the notice published in Summary No 31/99;

— annul the decision establishing the list of suitable candi-
dates and all decisions taken by the defendant on the
basis of such decisions;

— order the Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case contests the refusal of the
selection board in internal competition B 7/172 to admit her
to the tests in that competition, the criteria for admission to
which she claims to fulfil.

In support of her application, she pleads:

— infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations;

— infringement of Article 5 of Annex III to those Regu-
lations, resulting from a manifest error of assessment;

— breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare and
the principle of sound

interests of officials and of
administration.

Action brought on 28 December 2000 by Comitato
organizzatore del convegno internazionale ‘Effetti degli
inquinamenti atmosferici sul clima e sulla vegetazione’
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-387/00)

(2001/C 61/43)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 28 December 2000 by the Comita-
to organizzatore del convegno internazionale "Effetti degli
inquinamenti atmosferici sul clima e sulla vegetazione" (Organ-
ising Committee for the International Conference on ‘The
Effects of Atmospheric Pollutants on Climate and Vegetation’),
represented by Paolo Grassi e Giuseppe Russo, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.

— annul the contested measure;

— in the alternative, annul the contested measure and order
the defendant Commission to exclude from the agreed
financing only the item of expenditure evidenced by the
invoice
for
LIT 11 900 000 and declare the debt discharged in
respect of the other lawful expenditure;

from Linguistlink

Ltd. No

67/91

— order the defendant Commission to pay all the costs of
the proceedings pursuant of Article 87 of the Rules of
Procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present application has been made against the measure
adopted by Directorate General XIX Budget, issued on 10 Octo-
ber 2000 under number BUDG/G2/CBI-D(2000)96003569
requesting repayment and the debit note in relation to contract
B4/91/3046/11396 of 20 December 1991, for financing for
the applicant Committee. The purpose of
financing
contract was to enable the organisation of a conference of
international studies entitled ‘Effects of atmospheric pollutants
on climate and vegetation’.

that

The applicant states in that regard that:

— The conference followed the normal course in Taormina

from 26 to 29 September 1991.

— The cost estimate was calculated at LIT 718 462 500,

including VAT.

— Immediately after the conference, all the documentation
relating to it was destroyed by a fire at the offices of the
company which organised the conference. On account of
events beyond its control the Organising Committee was
unable to recover the original statements and so had to
undertake a complex reconstruction of them.

— Following an initial claim for payment, in response to
which the applicant sent documents which, in its view,
were more than sufficient to prove and account for the
expenditure incurred, the Commission remained silent
for fully two years, giving rise to a legitimate expectation
on the part of the Committee that the documentation
had been accepted and that all actions for recovery had
been abandoned.

— Instead, and to its great surprise, the Directorate General
concerned repeats its request for repayment, again with-
out providing reasons, according to the applicant, and
with no reference to an actual measure annulling the
financing.