Case T-163/01: Action brought on 17 July 2001 by Juan Pedro Pérez Escanilla against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2001-09-29
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), administrator, equal treatment, promotion, staff assessment

C 275/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

29.9.2001

The applicant goes on to argue that the Commission erred in
applying Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of the Council (1) to
It submits that Combus has neither
the situation in this case.
a ‘tariff obligation’ nor an ‘obligation to operate’, and that the
company does not provide a public service. The regulation is
not applicable to Combus and the State aid granted to Combus
does not come with the scope of that regulation.

In the contested decision, the Commission proceeded on the
basis that the aid for Combus is restructuring aid. Against this,
the applicant argues that the aid granted is not restructuring
aid, but rather an operating subsidy, and that at no time was a
restructuring plan submitted for any of the three subsidies
granted in total. Further, it is a condition of the framework
provisions that aid recipients must contribute significantly to
the restructuring programme using their own means from
external financing, and it is, according to the applicant, obvious
that Combus did not itself make any contribution.

So far as Article 73 EC is concerned, the applicant submits
inter alia that neither the Member States nor the Commission
can invoke Article 73 EC in order to legitimise aid for the
transport industry or transport objectives which cannot be
regarded as being compatible with Article 87 EC.

The applicant concludes by arguing that the Commission has
infringed the principles of equal treatment and proportionality,
has failed to meet its obligation to provide reasons, and has
committed essential procedural errors, for instance through its
use of fundamentally flawed facts in support of the decision.

(1) Regulation (EEC) No 1191/69 of the Council of 26 June 1969 on
action by Member States concerning the obligations inherent in
the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and
inland waterway (OJ, English Special Edition 1969(I), p. 276).

Action brought on 12 July 2001 by Christopher Wilkin-
son against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-159/01)

(2001/C 275/28)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 July 2001 by Christopher
Wilkinson, residing in Brussels, represented by Marc-Albert
Lucas, lawyer.

— to assign to the unit in Directorate A of DG INFSO
responsible for telecommunications the duties of
organising and managing the internet infrastructures
which the applicant carried out in his capacity as
advisor;

— to abolish his duties as advisor;

— to transfer him in due course to another Directorate

General by way of redeployment; and

— to transfer him in the interim as advisor ad personam

at Directorate A of DG INFSO.

— annul the implied decision rejecting a number of adminis-
trative complaints lodged by the applicant on 4 and
19 December 2000, and on 19 January 2001, against the
decisions of 1 December.

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— the existence in the present case of a manifest error of

assessment;

— manifestly inadequate reasons for the contested acts;

— infringement of

the decision of 26 July 2000
implementing ‘peer review’, as set out in the memor-
andum of 13 September 2000 from the Secretary General
to the Directors General and Heads of Service;

— breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of

officials;

— infringement of Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations.

Action brought on 17 July 2001 by Juan Pedro Pérez
Escanilla against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-163/01)

(2001/C 275/29)

(Language of the case: French)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decisions of 1 December 2000 of the Director

General of DG INFSO:

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 July 2001 by Juan Pedro Pérez
Escanilla, residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis
and Véronique Peere, lawyers.

29.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 275/15

The applicant claims that the Court should:

European Communities on 19 July 2001 by Arnaldo Lucac-
cioni, represented by Mauro Cimino.

— annul the decision of the Commission of 7 September
2000 not to promote the applicant to Grade A4 in the
1999 promotions procedure;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant challenges the decision not to promote him to
Grade A4 in the 1999 promotions procedure.

In support of his application, the applicant claims that the
appointing authority committed a manifest error of assessment
by comparing the circumstances of the applicant against the
average staff report results for the directorate to which he was
posted. Moreover, the decision is allegedly based on the sole
factor that his Directorate General only had available three
posts for promotion to Grade A4 for 1999. Since he was listed
4th by his Directorate General,
the appointing authority
automatically and without examining his merits in comparison
with those of the other candidates eligible for promotion,
removed the applicant’s chances of being promoted in that
year.

The applicant pleads:

— infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;

— breach of the principle that officials should have reason-

able career prospects;

— manifest error of assessment;

— breach of the principle of equal treatment and non-

discrimination.

Action brought on 19 July 2001 by Arnaldo Lucaccioni
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-164/01)

(2001/C 275/30)

(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

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order compensation for biological and non-material
damage, caused by the defendant between 1967 and
1990, irrespective of (or under) Article 73 of the Staff
Regulations, as a result of the inexcusable fault of the
institution, which thus incurs liability, inasmuch as it:

— caused continuous and culpable bodily harm to the
applicant, in that it obliged him to work, giving
untrue reassurances, in an environment contamin-
ated by asbestos, knowing full well that asbestos is
harmful even for persons not at risk

— deliberately attempted to harm the applicant, at the
risk of killing him, which is mentioned only to
support the allegation of harm

— deliberately attempted against the applicant’s safety

at work, by seriously neglecting safety

amounting to ITL 7 000 000 000, by analogy with the
amounts ordered in respect of each of
the victims
(totalling some ITL 1 000 000 000) in the judgment in
Case 4840/96 of 5 July 1996 delivered by the Pretura
Circondariale di Torino (District Magistrate’s Court, Turin)
and the compensation ordered for each of the victims
of
namely
‘Cermis’
ITL 4 000 000 000.

disaster,

cable

the

car

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case, the same applicant as in
Case T-165/95 Lucaccioni v Commission (1)? was awarded a
rate of total permanent invalidity of 130% and was paid the
capital at the rate of 100 % under Article 12 of the Joint Rules
and compensation at the rate of 30 %, under Article 12 of the
same rules. The applicant could no longer, apparently, avail
himself of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations, since in 1985
the defendant decided that the cumulated total under the two
articles could not exceed 100 %. The applicant now seeks
compensation for biological and non-material damage suffered
during the period from 1967 to 1990 irrespective of (or under)
Article 73 of the Staff Regulations, attributable to the conduct
of the defendant for the way in which it dealt with the
problems arising from the presence of asbestos in the Berlay-
mont building.