Case T-5/01: Action brought on 4 January 2001 by Istituto Nazionale Istruzione Professionale Agricola — I.N.I.P.A. and Others against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-03-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, appeal to the Court (EU), award of contract, foodstuff, inter-company cooperation, public awareness campaign

C 95/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

24.3.2001

Infringement of the right to put forward a proper defence: if
an undertaking on which the Commission has wrongly
imposed a fine is not entitled to claim lost interest, it is in
effect not in a position to mount a full defence against
decisions wrongly addressed to it by the Commission.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case
T-2/01.

Unjustified enrichment.

Since there exists no generally applicable rate of interest, the
applicant bases its calculation of the interest on the percentage
charged by the Commission when fixing the amount to be
paid by undertakings which have delayed paying a justified
fine.

Action brought on 4 January 2001 by Eerste Nederlandse
Cement Industrie (ENCI) NV against the Commission of
the European Communities

(Case T-3/01)

(2001/C 95/31)

(Language of the Case: Dutch)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 4 January 2001 by Eerste Neder-
landse Cement Industrie (ENCI) NV, established at ’s-Hertogen-
bosch (Netherlands), represented by M.B.W. Biesheuvel and
R. Wesseling, of The Hague Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision of 23 November 2000
refusing to pay ENCI interest on the fine improperly
imposed on it;

— order the Commission to pay to ENCI interest at the rate
of 8,75 %, or at
least at an appropriate rate, on
7 316 000 euro for the period from 3 May 1995 to
23 November 2000, together with interest at the rate of
6,23 % on that sum for the period from 23 November
2000 until payment of the interest by the Commission to
ENCI;

Action brought on 4 January 2001 by Istituto Nazionale
Istruzione Professionale Agricola — I.N.I.P.A. and Others
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-5/01)

(2001/C 95/32)

(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 4 January 2001 by the Istituto
Nazionale Istruzione Professionale Agricola — I.N.I.P.A. and
Others, represented by Giovanni Pesce and Filippo Brunetti,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— uphold the application and order the defendant to pay

the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present application is directed against the decision con-
tained in the letter dated 27 October 2000 (D13118), signed
by the Director General of the European Commission, Direc-
torate-General for Health and Consumer Protection, by which
the applicant consortium of undertakings was informed that
they had been excluded from the tendering procedure relating
to the information campaign on food safety in Member States
for 2000 and 2001.

The rejection at issue is based on the lack of evidence of:

— at least three years’ of experience in cooperation with a

consumer organisation; and

— ability to involve the consumer organisations in the

campaign.

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

In support of its arguments, the applicant consortium alleges:

24.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 95/17

— Error of fact and absolute lack of statement of reasons.
First, the need to involve consumer organisations was not
provided for in the invitation to tender and, secondly,
evidence of the requisite experience had been submitted.

— condemn the Commission to pay damages provisionally

evaluated at 1 Euro for the prejudice suffered;

— condemn the Commission to pay the costs.

— Internal

inconsistency of the decision and misuse of
powers. In a communication dated 14 September 2000,
sent by the Commission to the participants in the
tendering procedure, it was stated that not only had the
applicant consortium’s offer been selected, that is to say
its tender been accepted, it had also been awarded the
contract in which it was interested.

— Breach of the terms of the tender and invalidity on
grounds of incompetence. The applicants state in this
respect that the Director General who signed the contest-
ed decision was not, under the terms of the tender, the
person competent to carry out all the communications
relating to the tendering procedure and to adopt the
relevant measures, and that the contested letter confuses
selection criteria, for the purposes of participating in the
tendering procedure, and grounds for exclusion from the
tendering procedure itself.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant entered into a three-year contract of employ-
ment with the Authority Empowered to Conclude Contracts
of Employment (AECCE), which contract was renewable for a
further year.

Despite allegedly favourable opinions expressed in the appli-
cant’s last performance report, the AECCE decided only to
extend the applicant’s contract for six months.

The applicant seeks the annulment of this decision and submits
that the AECCE’s decision violated the obligation to state
reasons contained in Article 25 of the Staff Regulations. As all
three-year contracts of temporary staff were allegedly extended,
except for the one of the applicant, a limit of six months
for the extension of the applicant’s contract constitutes an
infringement of the principle of non-discrimination and goes
clearly against the interest of the service.

Furthermore, the applicant alleges that the decision infringes
Article 26 of the Staff Regulation and violates his rights to
defence, and that it constitutes a misuse of powers.

Action brought on 12 January 2001 by Norman Pyres
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-7/01)

(2001/C 95/33)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 January 2001 by Norman Pyres
(Swan Residence, rue Ph. Baucq, 100, Belgium), represented by
Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of De Backer, Brussels.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Action brought on 19 January 2001 by Michael Becker
against the European Court of Auditors

(Case T-9/01)

(2001/C 95/34)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the European Court of Auditors was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 19 January 2001 by Michael Becker, of Luxembourg,
represented by Roy Nathan, lawyer.

— annul the decision of the Commission of 22 January
2000 extending the Appellant’s contract of employment
only until 30 July 2000, so for a further period limited to
six months, and, if necessary, annul the decision of the
Commission of 6 October 2000 rejecting the Appellant’s
complaint;

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the defendant to withdraw its decision of 13 No-

vember 2000;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.