Case T-134/02: Action brought on 25 April 2002 by Miguel Tejada Fernández against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-06-29
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), equal treatment, regulations for civil servants

C 156/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

29.6.2002

Action brought on 18 April 2002 by Pravir Kumar
Chawdhry against Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-133/02)

(2002/C 156/66)

In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:

— infringement of Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations;

— infringement of Article 32 of the Staff Regulations;

— breach of the principle of non-discrimination;

(Language of the case: French)

— breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare 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 18 April 2002 by Pravir Kumar
Chawdhry, residing in Sangiano (Italy), represented by Georges
Vandersanden and Laure Levi, avocats.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul

the decision of

the authority empowered to
conclude contracts of employment (AECCE) of 2 May
2001 classifying the applicant in Grade A 6, step 3, and,
in so far as necessary, annul the decision of 14 December
2001, served on 8 January 2002, rejecting the applicant’s
complaint;

— order the defendant to pay the balance of the salary
consisting in the difference between the remuneration
corresponding to classification in Grade A 6, step 3,
and the remuneration corresponding to a higher grade,
together with default interest at the rate of 5,75 % per
annum, with effect from 1 April 2001;

— order the defendant to pay damages provisionally asses-

sed, ex æquo et bono, at EUR 1;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a temporary agent employed by the Com-
mission, contests the decision of the AECCE classifying him in
Grade A 6, step 3.

The applicant claims that the AECCE ought to have specifically
assessed the possible application of Article 31(2) of the Staff
Regulations to the applicant and that such an assessment
should have led to the actual application of that provision to
the applicant, that is to say to his classification in Grade A 5.

— breach of the rules on the free movement of workers;

— breach of the obligation to state reasons.

Action brought on 25 April 2002 by Miguel Tejada
Ferna´ndez against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-134/02)

(2002/C 156/67)

(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 25 April 2002 by Miguel Tejada
Ferna´ndez, residing in Woluwé-St-Etienne, Belgium, represent-
lawyer, with an address for service in
ed by Lucas Vogel,
Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the appointing authority of 10 Janu-
ary 2002, notified to the applicant on 15 January 2002,
rejecting the applicant’s claim of 3 October 2001 for
annulment of the decision refusing him promotion to
grade B2 for the 2001 promotions year, and annulment
of the proposals for promotion to that grade;

— in so far as is necessary, annul the decision refusing the
applicant promotion to grade B2 for the 2001 pro-
motions year, and the proposals for promotion to that
grade;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

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,