Case T-10/02: Action brought on 18 January 2002 by Marie-Claude Girardot against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-03-16
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), job access, staff assessment

C 68/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16.3.2002

national B.V., established in Amsterdam, Coöperatieve Centrale
Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A. (Rabobank Nederland), estab-
lished in Amsterdam, DSM Finance B.V., established in Heerlen
(Netherlands), DTG Finance B.V., established in The Hague,
Heineken N.V., established in Amsterdam, ING Verzekeringen
N.V., established in The Hague, Koninklijke Ahold N.V.,
established in Zaandam (Netherlands), Landis Group Inter-
national B.V., established in Utrecht (Netherlands), Unilever
N.V., established in Rotterdam (Netherlands), and Wolters
Kluwer N.V., established in Amsterdam, all represented by
E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk and S.B. Noë, lawyers.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision of 11 July 2001 to
initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC in
respect of aid measure C 51/2001 (ex NN 48/2000) —
International financing activities;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested decision, the Commission initiated an investi-
gation procedure concerning new State aid in respect of the
Netherlands fiscal legislation relating to international group
financing activities (‘the CFA regime’). In their application in
the present proceedings, the applicants deny that any new
State aid is involved.

The applicants plead infringement of Article 88 of the EC
Treaty and of Regulation No 659/1999,
inasmuch as the
Commission should have initiated the procedure in relation to
existing aid rather than that in respect of new aid. According
to the applicants, it was not until after the CFA regime was
introduced in 1997 that the Commission proceeded to regard
such measures as constituting aid. As evidence of this, the
applicants refer to the Commission’s observations of 1984 and
1987 in relation to notification of a similar system by the
Belgian Government, and also to the fact that the Belgian
system is currently being investigated in accordance with the
procedure for existing aid.

The applicants further claim that
the contested decision
violates the principle of equality, the general duty of care and
the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations.
Moreover, no sufficient statement of reasons has been given
for the classification of the measure as new State aid.

Action brought on 18 January 2002 by Marie-Claude
Girardot against Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-10/02)

(2002/C 68/35)

(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 18 January 2002 by Marie-Claude
Girardot, residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas Lhoëst,
avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission of 13 March
2001 rejecting the applicant’s candidature in respect of
COM/R/502310/2001, COM/R/502253/2001, COM/R/
508026/2001, COM/R/502529/2001, COM/R/506004/
2001, COM/R/502059/2001 and COM/R/502105/2001,
published in the Spécial Recherche vacancy notice of
12 February 2001;

— annul the decision of the Commission of 15 March
2001 rejecting the applicant’s candidature in respect of
COM/2001/CCR16/R, published in the Spécial CCR
vacancy notice of 9 February 2001;

— annul the appointments made to the abovementioned

posts;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

it

infringes the terms of

According to the applicant, the Commission added a new
condition for the admission of candidates to posts, refusing
her candidature on the ground that the post is only available
to staff covered by the Staff Regulations. Since that condition
does not appear in the vacancy notices, the applicant submits
those notices and alleges
that
infringement of Articles 4 and 29 of the Staff Regulations
inasmuch as the Commission has not organised a competition
for those posts. The applicant also alleges manifest error of
the Staff
assessment and infringement of Article 27 of
Regulations in that the Commission did not take account of
the applicant’s qualifications. Finally, the applicant claims that
a statement of reasons has not been provided for the contested
decisions.