Case T-135/01: Action brought on 18 June 2001 by Giorgio Fedon & Figli S.p.A, Fedon S.r.l. and Fedon America USA Inc. against the Commission of the European Communities and the Council of the European Union
Date: 2001-09-29
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, United States, appeal to the Court (EU), customs drawback, export (EU)

C 275/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

29.9.2001

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

Action brought on 22 May 2001 by Ursula Klug against
the Council of the European Union

of 7 June 2001

in Case T-202/00: Mario Costacurta v Commission of the
European Communities (1)

(Officials — Re-assignment of the applicant to a third
country in 1993 — Reintegration of the official in the
Publications Office in 1996 — Loss of entitlement to the
derogating provisions of Annex X to the Staff Regulations
— Request to be reassigned to a third State submitted in
2000 on the basis of Annex X — Manifest inadmissibility
of the action directed against the Commission’s replies)

(Case T-112/01)

(2001/C 275/22)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 22 May 2001 by Ursula Klug, residing in
Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique Peere,
avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision definitively establishing her staff report

for the period 1997-1999;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

(2001/C 275/21)

Pleas in law and main arguments

(Language of the case: French)

The applicant in the present case contests certain assessments
contained in her staff report for the period 1997-1999.

In Case T-202/00: Mario Costacurta, an official of the Com-
mission of the European Communities, residing in Luxem-
bourg, represented by M. Petit, lawyer, with an address for
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia and J. Currall) — application
for annulment directed, first, against the measure contained in
one of the letters from the Director of the Publications Office
sent to the applicant in reply to his request to be reassigned to
a third State, dated 6 June 2000, and, secondly, against the
implied rejection of the applicant’s complaint of 21 July 2000
— the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of
A.W.H. Meij, President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges;
H.
Jung, Registrar, made an order on 7 June 2001, the
operative part of which is as follows:

1.

2.

The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

The applicant shall bear all the costs, including those relating
to the interlocutory proceedings.

(1) OJ 2000 C 285.

In support of her claim, she pleads:

— breach of the staff report procedure as laid down in the
guidelines for staff reports published on 28 July 1989;

— a manifest error in the present case, resulting from
confusion between sick leave and absenteeism, as regards
the assessments appearing under the heading ‘Consistency
of performance’.

Action brought on 18 June 2001 by Giorgio Fedon & Figli
S.p.A, Fedon S.r.l. and Fedon America USA Inc. against
the Commission of the European Communities and the
Council of the European Union

(Case T-135/01)

(2001/C 275/23)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties and the Council of the European Union was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 18 June 2001 by Giorgio Fedon & Figli S.p.A, Fedon S.r.l.
and Fedon America USA Inc., represented by I. van Bael,
A. Cevese and F. Di Gianni, Avvocati.

29.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 275/11

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

— assess the right of Fedon and order the Community to
pay compensation of LIT 4 432 590 743 or such other
sum as the Court may consider reasonable, subject to the
possibility of adjustment for the duration of the obligation
to pay additional duties, plus interest at
the Italian
statutory rate from the time of actual payment by Fedon
to the American customs administration of 95,4 % of the
value of the goods (increased duties), until settlement,
plus interest for delay of 8%, in accordance with Com-
munity case-law, in the event of delay in paying the sum
claimed;

— order the Community to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants, which export spectacle cases to the United
States, claim damages for loss following the adoption by the
United States of certain retaliatory commercial measures
affecting their industry.

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
Case T-69/00 FIAM and FIAM Technologies v Council and
Commission (1).

(1) OJ C 135 of 13. 5. 2000, p. 30.

The applicant, a European Central Bank employee, is the father
of
two sons. He applied for an education allowance in
respect of his sons’ attendance at an international school. The
defendant refused that application, referring to the fact that
the applicant did not satisfy the conditions for receiving the
allowance since he was not entitled to an expatriation allow-
ance of 16 %.

The applicant submits that the refusal to grant the education
allowance is contrary to Treaty rights conferred on him and in
particular infringes the duty owed by the defendant to have
regard for his interests.

He also submits that Article 19(i) of
the Conditions of
Employment offends against the principle of equal treatment.
The defendant has acknowledged in Article 9(c) of
the
Conditions of Employment that it is obliged to observe that
principle. An education allowance under Article 19 of the
Conditions of Employment is granted only to employees who
already satisfy the conditions for the grant of an expatriation
allowance. Therefore, two categories of employees, namely
employees who meet those conditions and employees who do
not, are treated differently. The unequal treatment would be
objectively justified only if the aim of the expatriation allow-
ance were identical to that of the education allowance, which
is not the case. The aims of the allowances are fundamentally
different, so that it is not justified to link the grant of an
education allowance pursuant to Article 19(i) of the Conditions
of Employment to the conditions for an expatriation allowance
pursuant to Article 17.

Action brought on 6 July 2001 by Emanuele Nicastro
against the European Central Bank

(Case T-152/01)

(2001/C 275/24)

(Language of the Case: German)

Action brought on 4 July 2001 by Mercedes Alvarez
Moreno against Commission of the European Communi-
ties

(Case T-153/01)

(2001/C 275/25)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the European Central Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 6 July 2001 by Emanuele Nicastro, of Frankfurt am Main,
represented by Dr Norbert Pflüger, Regina Steiner and Silvia
Mittländer, Lawyers.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 4 July 2001 by Mercedes Alvarez
Moreno, residing in Berlin, represented by Georges Vander-
sanden and Dominique Dugois, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision by the European Central Bank to
refuse him an education allowance for his two sons;

— order the European Central Bank to pay the costs.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision taken by the defendant to apply an
age limit set at 65 years to freelance interpreters and
therefore to apply that age limit to her;