Case T-145/02: Action brought on 8 May 2002 by Armin Petrich against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-06-29
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), administrative competition, personnel administration

29.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 156/37

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant argues infringement of
Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations, infringement of the
principle of non-discrimination and a manifest error of
assessment. According to the applicant, any objective consider-
ation of the respective merits of the officials eligible for
promotion would not have led to his being disregarded.

Action brought on 18 April 2002 by Papelera Guipuz-
coana de Zicun˜ aga, S.A. against Commission of the
European Communities

(Case T-136/02)

(2002/C 156/68)

(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 18 April 2002 by Papelera Guipuz-
coana de Zicun˜ aga, S.A., whose registered office is at Hernani
(Guipu´ zcoa, Spain), represented by In˜ igo Quintana Aguirre.

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

— annul Article 1 of the Commission decision of 20 Decem-
ber 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81
of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement
(Case COMPE/E/1/36.212 — Carbonless paper), in so far
as it finds that Zicun˜ aga participated in the infringement
and in so far as it relates to the duration of
the
infringement, and Article 3 in relation to the fine imposed
in Article 4;

— in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the

applicant in the contested decision as follows:

(a)

(b)

(c)

annul the application of the excess of 10 % applied
by the Commission on the ground that a duration
in excess of one year was not imputed to the
applicant;

reduce substantially (by a minimum of 60 %) the
basic penalty imposed to take account of
the
mitigating circumstances indicated;

award costs to the applicant, including expenditure
and interest for the guarantees provided, deriving
from the handling of the entire procedure.

The Commission decision against which the present action is
brought is the same as that contested in Case T-109/92 Bolloré
v Commission (1). In that decision, the Commission found that
the applicant had participated in the national meetings of
in the context of the European
the secret European cartel
Association of Manufacturers of Carbonless Paper (AEMPC),
the adoption and concerted application of price increases, the
sharing of sales and market quotas in the copying paper sector
and the establishment of control mechanisms.

In support of its claims, the applicant pleads infringement of
the principles of presumption of innocence and of the burden
of proof. In that regard, it denies having participated in the
meetings held for the purpose of organising the European
cartel. The applicant emphasises that the defendant institution
ignored not only the fact that the applicant does not belong to
the AEMPC but also the fact that that association did not
possess information relating to the applicant’s prices and sales
volumes.

The applicant claims that the fine imposed on it should be
reduced by at least 60 %. Apart from what has already been
stated in the preceding paragraph, the applicant emphasises
that the infringements imputed to it are alleged to have lasted
for less than one year.

(1) Not yet published in OJ.

Action brought on 8 May 2002 by Armin Petrich against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-145/02)

(2002/C 156/69)

(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 by Armin Petrich, of Travemünde,
Germany, represented by Patrick Goergen, lawyer, with an
address for service in Luxembourg,

C 156/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

29.6.2002

The applicant asks the Court to:

Removal from the register of Case T-163/97 (1)

(2002/C 156/70)

(Language of the Case: Dutch)

By order of 10 April 2002 the President of the Third Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
ordered the removal from the register of Case T-163/97:
Nederlands Antillen v Council of the European Union and
Commission of the European Communities.

(1) OJ C 212 of 12.07.1997.

— annul

the decision taken by the Selection Board of
Competition COM/A/7/01 on 11 February 2002 not to
correct the written test of the applicant and not to admit
him to the tests subsequent to the written test;

— annul all the subsequent steps and measures taken in the

competition procedure in question;

— in the alternative, order the Commission to pay to the
applicant EUR 100 000 as compensation for material
and non-material damage;

— order the Commission to pay all the costs of the case.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present case, the applicant is challenging the refusal by
the Selection Board in Open Competition COM/A/7/01 to
correct his written test and admit him to the subsequent tests.
The ground for that refusal is that the applicant is said to
have insufficient experience in the area of human resource
management.

Removal from the register of Case T-218/99 (1)

It is pointed out that the applicant was included on the list
of candidates who fulfilled the general conditions of the
competition, he took part in the pre-selection tests, and was
admitted to the written test.

(2002/C 156/71)

(Language of the Case: German)

In support of his application, the applicant claims that:

— there was a manifest error of assessment in this case;

— the obligation to state reasons has been infringed;

By order of 28 January 2002 the President of the Fifth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
T-218/99: Anton Dürbeck GmbH v Commission of
the
European Communities.

— the principle of sound administration and the duty to
have regard to the welfare of applicants have not been
complied with.

(1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.