Case T-374/00: Action brought on 11 December 2000 by Verband der freien Rohrwerke e.V., Eisen- und Metallwerke Ferndorf GmbH and Rudolf Flender GmbH & Co. KG against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-02-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), economic concentration, restriction on competition, small and medium-sized enterprises, tube

24.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 61/19

Action brought on 12 December 2000 by Carmine
Salvatore Tralli against the European Central Bank

Pleas in law and main arguments

(Case T-373/00)

(2001/C 61/36)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the European Central Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 12 December 2000 by Carmine Salvatore Tralli, of
Nidderau (Germany), represented by Norbert Pflüger, Regina
Steiner and Silvia Mittländer, Rechtsanwälte, Frankfurt am
Main (Germany).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1)

the notice terminating his employment on

annul
31.12.2000;

(2)

annul the extension of the probationary period;

(3) declare

the

that

relationship existing
between the parties has not been brought to an end by
the notice of termination;

employment

The applicant is an employee of the European Central Bank.
He seeks annulment of the termination of his employment
together with a declaration that the employment relationship
continues to exist and has not been terminated.
In that
connection, the applicant is contesting a unilateral extension
by the ECB of the probationary period, the duration of which
was originally agreed as three month. On the basis of his
personal rights, he seeks the continuation of his employment
on the agreed contractual terms. In addition, he seeks an order
requiring the ECB to continue to pay the contractually
agreed remuneration beyond 31.12.2000, and pleads in that
connection default on the part of the ECB in accepting
performance of the contract.

Action brought on 11 December 2000 by Verband der
freien Rohrwerke e.V., Eisen- und Metallwerke Ferndorf
GmbH and Rudolf Flender GmbH & Co. KG against the
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-374/00)

(2001/C 61/37)

(4) declare that the unilateral extension of the probationary

period is ineffective in law;

(Language of the case: German)

(5) declare

the

that

relationship existing
between the parties has continued to exist, without being
terminated, after 31.12.2000;

employment

(6) order the European Central Bank to continue, beyond
31.12.2000, to provide the applicant with employment
as a security guard in accordance with the contractual
conditions of employment;

(7) order the European Central Bank to pay to the applicant,
beyond 31.12.2000, the basic remuneration amounting
to EUR 32 304 p.a., together with the allowances and
other items of remuneration provided for in the con-
ditions of employment.

In a series of ancillary claims for relief, the applicant seeks a
declaration that the employment relationship and the legal
consequences flowing therefrom should continue in existence
at least until the expiry of the notice period applying in respect
of the termination of employment relationships in the ECB
which are of an unlimited duration.

Finally, the applicant claims that the Court should: order the
European Central Bank to pay the costs.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 11 December 2000 by Verband
der freien Rohrwerke e.V., of Düsseldorf (Germany), Eisen- und
Metallwerke Ferndorf GmbH, of Kreuztal-Ferndorf (Germany),
and Rudolf Flender GmbH & Co. KG, of Siegen (Germany),
represented by Hans Hellmann, Rechtsanwalt, Cologne (Ger-
many).

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the defendant’s decisions of 5 September and
14
case
No COMP/M.2045 (ECSC 1336) Salzgitter/Mannes-
mannröhren-Werke;

in merger

September

control

2000

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the particulars provided by it, the first applicant
is an association representing the interests of a number of
small and medium-sized undertakings producing welded steel
pipes from hot-rolled wide strips or quarto plates. The other
applicants are members of the first applicant.

C 61/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

24.2.2001

By the contested decisions, the Commission declared a pro-
posed concentration between Salzgitter AG and Mannes-
mannröhren-Werke AG to be compatible with the common
market pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 and author-
ised the proposed concentration pursuant to Article 66(2) CS.

The applicants are contesting the decisions on the basis of the
fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC and the second paragraph
of Article 33 CS. They consider that the contested measures
are of direct and individual concern to them.

The applicants complain, in their criticism of the Commission,
that the contested decisions omit any examination of the facts
and law with regard to individual product markets which are
directly affected by the concentration, despite the fact that
the proposed concentration radically alters the structural
conditions of competition on those markets. In addition, the
Commission has unlawfully omitted to examine from a factual
and legal standpoint the effects of the concentration which
result from the fact that the concentration has led to inter-
linking between Salzgitter AG and third parties. That inter-
linking is liable significantly to prejudice the effectiveness of
competition on the markets concerned.

Action brought on 19 December 2000 by Carmelo Mor-
ello against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties

(Case T-376/00)

(2001/C 61/38)

(Language of the case: French)

— award the sum of 120 000 euro, subject to increase or
decrease during the course of the proceedings, by way of
compensation for the non-material damage suffered by
the applicant as a result of the irregular or incomplete
information gathered by the defendant in relation to the
applicant’s personal file and the state of uncertainty and
worry in which he has been placed with regard to his
future career;

— award the sum of 25 000 euro, subject to increase or
decrease during the course of the proceedings, by way of
compensation for the material damage suffered by the
applicant as a result of his having been rejected as a
candidate for the post to be filled and of his having thus
lost an opportunity of promotion;

— order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case contests the refusal by the
appointing authority to appoint him to the post of head of the
unit responsible for ‘Motor vehicles and other means of
transport’.

In support of his claims, he puts forward the following pleas
in law:

— infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and of

the obligation to provide a statement of reasons;

— infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, of the
rules governing the promotion procedure and of the
principle of equal treatment;

— a manifest error of assessment in the present case;

— misuse of power and infringement of Article 7 of the

Staff Regulations.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 19 December 2000 by Carmelo
Morello, residing in Brussels, represented by Jacques Sambon
and Pierre Paul Van Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision appointing another
person to post COM/113/99 IV/F/2 ‘Motor vehicles and
other means of transport’, corresponding to a grade
A5/A4 post of Head of Unit;

— annul the Commission’s decision rejecting the application

of the applicant for the post in question;

Action brought on 22 December 2000 by Monsanto
Company against the Council of the European Union

(Case T-382/00)

(2001/C 61/39)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 22 December 2000 by Monsanto Company,
a company established under the laws of Delaware (USA),
represented by Clive Stanbrook Q.C. and Wilko van Weert, of
Stanbrook & Hooper, Brussels.