Case T-66/02: Action brought on 25 February 2002 by 1. Idiotiko Institouto Epangelmatikis Katartisis, South Avyerinopoulou — Anagnorismenes Technikes Idiotikes Epangelmatikes Skholes; 2. Panellinias Enosis Idiotikon Institouton Epangelmatikis Katartisis; and 3. Idiotikis Teknikis Epangelmatikis Ekpaideusis kai Katartisis, against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-05-04
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Greece, action for annulment (EU), financing, public institution, vocational training

4.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 109/67

Action brought on 4 March 2002 by Michelle Boisset-
Chetaud against European Parliament

(Case T-65/02)

(2002/C 109/125)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
4 March 2002 by Michelle Boisset-Chetaud, residing in Nice
(France), represented by Laurent Mosar, lawyer, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision following from the letter of 27 June
2001 by which the European Parliament suspended the
application of the weighting for France from 1 June 2001
until the production of documents showing unambigu-
ously that Michelle Boisset-Chetaud’s centre of interests is
in Nice;

— Annul

the decision of the Secretary General of

the
European Parliament in a letter of 6 December 2001, in
response to the applicant’s complaint, that following that
decision the documents produced by Michelle Boisset-
Chetaud did not allow the head of the Social Affairs
Division to consider that she had established her centre
of interests, and hence the place where she is deemed to
incur expenditure, in Nice.

However, by referring to a notice determining rights to an
invalidity pension issued by the head of division in Directorate
General V — Personnel, the appointing authority took as the
sole criterion that of residence.

Action brought on 25 February 2002 by 1. Idiotiko
Institouto Epangelmatikis Katartisis, South Avyerinopou-
lou — Anagnorismenes Technikes Idiotikes Epangelma-
tikes Skholes; 2. Panellinias Enosis Idiotikon Institouton
Epangelmatikis Katartisis; and 3. Idiotikis Teknikis Epan-
gelmatikis Ekpaideusis kai Katartisis, against the Com-
mission of the European Communities

(Case T-66/02)

(2002/C 109/126)

(Language of the case: Greek)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 25 February 2002 by 1. Idiotiko Institouto
Epangelmatikis Katartisis (Private institute for occupational
training), South Avyerinopoulou — Anagnorismenes Technik-
es Idiotikes Epangelmatikes Skholes (Accredited private techni-
cal training schools); 2. Panellinias Enosis Idiotikon Institouton
Epangelmatikis Katartisis (Panhellenic Association of private
institutions for occupational training); 3. Idiotikis Teknikis
Epangelmatikis Ekpaideusis kai Katartisis (Panhellenic Associ-
ation of private technical education and training).

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants claim that the Court should:

The applicant in this case contests the refusal of the appointing
authority to consider that her centre of interests is in Nice and
that the weighting for France should therefore be applied to
her retirement pension.

In support of her application, she submits that there has been
a breach of Article 82 of the Staff Regulations. The applicant
asserts that the concept of residence mentioned there has been
the subject of judicial interpretation intended to establish that
a person sets up a permanent and habitual centre at the place
where he resides. In assessing the criteria for residence, the
defendant must rely on objective elements such as a certificate
of residence. In this respect, the applicant submitted not only
a certificate of residence but also numerous other documents,
such as the notarial act concerning the purchase of a flat, a
notice of change of address, and various bills.

— uphold the application for a declaration of the failure by
the Commission of the European Communities to bring
to an end the unlawful distinction between private and
public bodies engaged in occupational training as regards
the exclusive funding of the latter under the 3rd commun-
ity support network and, in particular, under the oper-
ational programme concerning education and initial
occupational training (II).

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Infringement of Article 87 EC: the proposed exclusive
funding of public occupational-training bodies consti-
tutes State (and Community) aid which does not concern
general measures nor is justified by the actual require-

C 109/68

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

4.5.2002

ments of public education. Such one-sided funding
distorts competition and affects trade between the Mem-
ber States.

— Infringement of the principle of equality under Article 12
EC: exclusive funding of public bodies dispensing occu-
pational and technical education introduces unlawful
discrimination against the private bodies dispensing occu-
pational training, inasmuch as that discrimination is not
necessitated by any overriding public interest.

— Infringement of the principle of subsidiarity.

Action brought on 18 March 2002 by Mara Messina
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-76/02)

(2002/C 109/127)

(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 18 March 2002 by Mara Messina,
represented by Michele Arcangelo Calabrese.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

December

— annul the Commission’s first refusal of access to docu-
ments communicated to the applicant by letter of
19
D/55293
2001,
COMP/G1/PI/cpbD(01)1704 and the second refusal of
access pursuant upon the absence of any reply to the
applicant’s confirmatory application sent to the Secretary-
General of the Commission by letter of 14 January 2002;

prot.

— order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In this action, the applicant challenges the defendant’s refusal
to grant access to certain documents relating to the State aid
regime which was the subject of the Commission’s decision of
2 August 2000 concerning measures to promote investment
in less-favoured regions of
Italy referred to in Law
No 488/1992 (State Aid no N 715/99).

— In support of that claim, the applicant argues infringe-
ment of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of
the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May
2001 regarding public access to European Parliament,
Council and Commission documents in that:

— no reply was given within the prescribed time-limit to the
confirmatory application concerning the application for
access;

— disclosure of the documents requested would in no way
harm the public interest in protecting inspections and
investigations or court proceedings.