Case T-263/01: Action brought on 17 October 2001 by Petros Mavromikhalis against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-01-05
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), professional experience, promotion, regulations for civil servants

C 3/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.1.2002

Action brought on 19 October 2001 by Jürgen Sachau
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-262/01)

(2002/C 3/68)

(Language of the case: German)

The applicant submits that the decision is defective in form
and in content, inter alia because the Commission exceeded the
period allowed for replying to the application and the decision
contains no statement of reasons. Furthermore, the decision is
contrary to the principles of proper administration and equal
treatment, to the proper exercise of discretion and to the duty
to have regard for the interests of officials.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 19 October 2001 by Jürgen
Sachau, resident in Kassel, Germany, represented by Dörte
Fouquet, Lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Action brought on 17 October 2001 by Petros Mavromi-
khalis against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties

(Case T-263/01)

(2002/C 3/69)

— declare that the decision dated 19 December 2000 sent

by the defendant to the applicant is inoperative;

(Language of the case: Greek)

— declare that the defendant is to reimburse to the applicant
all costs and expenditure which he has incurred as a
result of the period allowed for replying to the application
for continued employment, which expired on 19 Decem-
ber 2000, being clearly exceeded by the defendant in that
it did not formulate the decision until 19 December
2000;

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 October 2001 by Petros
Mavromikhalis, a Commission official, resident in Brussels,
represented by Nikolaos Korogiannakis, Lawyer, with an
address for service in Brussels.

— declare that

the applicant

is to be engaged by the
defendant with immediate effect on a contract of unlimi-
ted duration retroactively in Post COM/R/5698/00-
A8/A5 ST or in a comparable post in accordance with
the applicant’s professional qualifications;

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— grant the application as well founded in law and in

substance;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings

— annul:

including the applicant’s costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— the implied decision of the European Commission
by which it rejected the applicant’s complaint seek-
ing reconsideration of his placement in Grade A 5
instead of Grade A 4 on the basis of Article 31(2) of
the Staff Regulations;

his

for

applicant

submitted

candidature

The
Post
COM/R/5698/00-A8/A5 ST at the Joint Research Centre in
Ispra. At that time he was engaged in that post on a fixed-term
contract. His contract expired on 30 September 2000 and,
since it had been indicated to him internally that he would be
able to continue in the post, he decided to remain in Ispra in
order to be available to be called by the Commission. He did
not receive the Commission’s rejection until the decision of
19 December 2000.

— in the alternative,

the implied decision of

the
European Commission by which it rejected the
applicant’s complaint seeking placement at Step 2
with additional seniority of 5,5 months instead of at
Step 1 on the basis of Article 32 of the Staff
Regulations retroactively from the date of his
appointment;

— order the defendant to pay the costs irrespective of the

outcome of the case.

5.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 3/41

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appointing authority applied Article 46 of the Staff
Regulations and did not evaluate the applicant’s professional
experience in order to establish whether it would be possible
for Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations to be applied in order
to appoint him in Grade A 4 instead of Grade A 5.

The appointing authority should have calculated, on the basis
the second paragraph of Article 32(2), his additional
of
professional experience and placed him at Step 2, and should
have granted him additional seniority of 5,5 months at Step 2.

is

applicant

The
challenging Commission Decision
C(2001)1759 final of 11 July 2001 in so far as it characterises
as State aid incompatible with the common market the tax
reductions under Articles 52 to 56 of the Ley Foral (Regional
Law) 24/1996 del impuesto sobre sociedades (Regional Law
on corporation tax) of 30 December 1996 (Boletı´n Oficial de
Navarra No 159 of 31 December 1996) which provide for a
reduction of 50 % on the aforementioned tax for undertakings
which take up business in the Autonomous Community of
Navarra after the entry into force of that Law, provided they
invest a minimum of PTA 100 million (EUR 601 012) and
create more than 10 new jobs.

Deficient statement of reasons.

The pleas in law and main arguments on which the applicant
relies are similar to those put forward in Case T-225/01.

Action brought on 22 October 2001 by Confederacio´ n
Empresarial Vasca against Commission of the European
Communities

Action brought on 22 October 2001 by Confederacio´ n
Empresarial Vasca against Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-265/01)

(2002/C 3/70)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

(Case T-266/01)

(2002/C 3/71)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 October 2001 by Confedera-
cio´ n Empresarial Vasca, whose registered office is at Bilbao
(Spain, represented by Marcos Araujo Boyd, lawyer.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 22 October 2001 by Confedera-
cio´ n Empresarial Vasca, whose registered office is at Bilbao
(Spain, represented by Marcos Araujo Boyd, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the defendant of 11 July 2001 on
the system of State aid applied by Spain to undertakings
in Alava in the shape of a tax credit of 45 % of the cost
of the investment;

— annul the decision of the defendant of 11 July 2001 on
the system of State aid applied by Spain to undertakings
in Vizcaya in the shape of a tax credit of 45 % of the cost
of the investment;

— in the alternative, annul Articles 3 and 4 of the decision
of the defendant of 11 July 2001 on the system of State
aid applied by Spain to undertakings in Alava in the
shape of a tax credit of 45 % of the cost of the investment,
inasmuch as the obligation to recover the amounts not
levied by the Alava regional revenue authorities pursuant
to the disputed fiscal legislation is unjustified;

— in the alternative, annul Articles 3 and 4 of the decision
of the defendant of 11 July 2001 on the system of State
aid applied by Spain to undertakings in Vizcaya in the
shape of a tax credit of 45 % of the cost of the investment,
inasmuch as the obligation to recover the amounts
not levied by the Vizcaya regional revenue authorities
pursuant to the disputed fiscal legislation is unjustified;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

— order the Commission to pay the costs.