Case T-170/02: Action brought on 29 May 2002 by Maria Rosaria Ragazzini against European Parliament
Date: 2002-08-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Parliament, action for annulment (EU), motherhood, occupational disease, personal accident insurance, trauma

C 202/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

24.8.2002

Action brought on 4 June 2002 by Internationaler Tier-
schutz-Fonds (IFAW) GmbH against the Commission of
the European Communities

(Case T-168/02)

(2002/C 202/49)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 4 June 2002 by Internationaler
Tierschutz-Fonds (IFAW) GmbH, represented by Scott Crosby,
Solicitor.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Decision of the Commission of 26 March 2002
refusing access to the documents held by the Commission
authored by the German authorities relating to the
expansion of the existing Daimler Chrysler Aerospace
GmbH plant on the Elbe in Hamburg for the final
assembly of the Airbus A3XX on an area intended for the
Natura 2000 network, as the same were identified in the
applicant’s initial application of 20 December 2001 in
Category B of Annex III to that application;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs.

According to the applicant,
the contested Decision also
infringes Article 4 of the Regulation taken as a whole. The
applicant claims that the purpose of the consultation of the
German authorities was to enable the Commission to make an
assessment whether an exception under Article 4(1) or 4(2)
was applicable. However, such an assessment was apparently
not made by the Commission.
the Commission
indicated that a Member State has the right to veto access to
documents emanating from it, which results, according to the
applicant, in a reintroduction of the ‘authorship rule’.

Instead,

The applicant claims furthermore that the contested Decision
does not set out adequate reasons for refusing access and
therefore infringes Article 253 of the EC Treaty. There is also
no reasoning as to why partial access to the documents was
denied.

The applicant finally indicates that there is a clear public
interest in the disclosure of those documents since the project
leading to the destruction of Mühlenberger Loch was the
subject of much public and media comment. Therefore, the
public should have knowledge of the facts underpinning the
Opinion of the Commission authorising the declassification of
Mühlenberger Loch in order to understand how that accords
with environmental objectives and principles.

(1) 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 (OJ
L 145, 31.5.2001 p. 43).

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 29 May 2002 by Maria Rosaria
Ragazzini against European Parliament

The applicant sought access to certain documents concerning
the Opinion of the Commission of 19 April 2002 authorising
Germany to declassify the Mühlenberger Loch, an area protect-
ed under Council Directive 92/43/EEC as part of the Natura
2000 network. The applicant obtained access to part of these
documents. Access to the documents authored by the German
authorities and in the possession of the Commission was,
however, refused by the contested Decision following a request
to that effect made by the German authorities.

The applicant claims that the contested Decision constitutes a
breach of Article 4 of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1). According
to the applicant, Article 4(5) of the Regulation has been
misinterpreted by the Commission. The applicant claims that,
according to the plain meaning of the words used, a request
by a third party does not place the Commission under
an absolute obligation to comply with that request in all
circumstances. The Commission indicated however in its
Decision that Member States have a right of veto under
Article 4(5) of the Regulation.

(Case T-170/02)

(2002/C 202/50)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
29 May 2002 by Maria Rosaria Ragazzini, residing in Faenza
(Italy), represented by Georges Vandersanden, Laure Levi and
Aurore Finchelstein, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the appointing authority of 20 Feb-
ruary 2002 not to grant her the benefit of Article 73 of
the Staff Regulations;

24.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 202/31

— order payment of default interest at the rate of 5,75 %
with effect from 26 January 1988,
the date of the
accident, on the capital amount payable under Article 73
of the Staff Regulations;

— make an order

for damages

in the amount of
EUR 138 358,88 as compensation for the material and
non-material damage which the contested decision caused
to the applicant, such amount being provisional, subject
to increasing it in respect of the material damage, and as
equitable compensation for the non-material damage;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Following the injuries suffered by the applicant in relation to
giving birth in 1988, the defendant, first, took the view that
the cause of the injuries was not accidental and, secondly,
acknowledged that the applicant was suffering from total
permanent invalidity, rendering it impossible for her to work.

The applicant claims that a new fact has arisen, enabling her
to request afresh that she be accorded the benefit of Article 73
of the Staff Regulations by regarding those injuries as the result
of an accident. According to the applicant, the findings of the
Medical Committee in 1988 do not reflect her current medical
circumstances, since the sequelae have continued to wreak an
effect and worsened over the years. Furthermore, the com-
mittee did not examine the applicant’s situation with regard to
the medical accident. According to the applicant, since her
injuries were linked to the medical accident, they ought to be
regarded as accidental.

Accordingly, by deciding to reject the request, the defendant
infringed Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and the Rules on
Sickness Insurance for Officials of the European Communities
and, in particular, Articles 12, 14 and 22 thereof. Furthermore,
the applicant alleges breach of the duty to have regard to the
welfare of officials.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the ECB performance appraisal of the applicant for

the year 2001;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an employee of
the defendant, seeks the
annulment of his performance appraisal for 2001. He con-
siders that appraisal to be an act adversely affecting him
because the defendant did not confine itself to appraising his
performance. Instead, the defendant based the appraisal on
factual allegations which the applicant contests and which will
impair his future career development.

the defendant

The applicant claims that, under the provisions on data
protection,
is prohibited from relying on
electronically collected data and that that is, in itself, a sufficient
ground for annulment of the appraisal based on that data.
Moreover, the appraisal must be annulled on the ground that
it is based on incorrect factual information.

Action brought on 13 June 2002 by Neue Erba Lautex
GmbH Weberei und Veredlung against the Commission
of the European Communities

(Case T-181/02)

(2002/C 202/52)

(Language of the Case: German)

Action brought on 12 June 2002 by Jan Pflugradt against
the European Central Bank

(Case T-179/02)

(2002/C 202/51)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the European Central Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 12 June 2002 by Jan Pflugradt, represented by N. Pflüger,
lawyer.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 13 June
2002 by Neue Erba Lautex GmbH Weberei und Veredlung,
Neugersdorf (Germany), represented by Professor U. Ehricke,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the Commission Decision (C(2002)944 fin) of
12 March 2002 concerning State aid by the Federal
Republic in favour of Neue Erba Lautex GmbH and Erba
Lautex GmbH in liquidation;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.