Case T-241/02: Action brought on 7 August 2002 by Daniel Callebaut against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-10-12
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), assistant, equal treatment, promotion

C 247/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

12.10.2002

Action brought on 9 August 2002 by Koninklijke Co-
the Commission of the
operatie Cosun U.A. against

European Communities

(Case T-240/02)

(2002/C 247/35)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 9 August 2002 by Koninklijke
Coöperatie Cosun U.A., having its registered office in Breda,
represented by M.M. Slotboom and N.J. Helder.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul European Commission Decision C(2002) 1580
final (file number REM 19/01) of 2 May 2002 addressed
to the Kingdom of the Netherlands;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceed-

ings.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant manufactured so-called C sugar. This sugar must
be exported from the Community not later than one year after
the year of production. Failing this, extra charges are imposed
in accordance with Regulations No 1785/81 (1) and No 2670/
81 (2).

In 1993 the applicant sold C sugar to third parties, which were
to export it from the Community. However, the Nederlandse
Fiscale Inlichtingen en Opsporingsdienst (Netherlands Fiscal
Intelligence and Investigation Service) established that fraud
had been committed during transportation and that the C sugar
had in fact not been exported from the Community. In the
interests of the investigation, the applicant was at first not
informed of these developments. It was, however, ascertained
that the applicant was not itself involved in the fraud. Despite
this, the fact that the applicant had been kept in the dark with
regard to the fraud meant that it was unable to export the
sugar within the prescribed period and thus avoid incurring
the extra charges for non-exported C sugar.

The applicant thereupon sought remission of the extra charges
on the basis of Regulation No 1430/79 (3), replaced by
Regulation No 2913/92 (4). It argued that no negligence or
manipulative conduct could be attributed to it and that it was
also in a special situation inasmuch as it had not been
immediately informed of the fraud. The Commission rejected
its request for remission in the decision under challenge.

The applicant first submits that the decision under challenge is
contrary to Articles 1 and 13 of Regulation No 1430/79 in so
far as the Commission does not treat the extra charges as being
import or export duties. According to the decision, those
charges do not come within the scope of Regulation No 1430/
79 and cannot be remitted. The applicant, however, contends
that the charge is an import or export duty and that Regulation
No 1430/79 does indeed apply. It argues that the charge has
the same objective as a customs duty and is for the same
amount as a customs duty. Consequently, non-exported
C sugar ought to be treated in the same way as sugar imported
from non-member countries.

The applicant goes on to contend that the decision under
challenge is at variance with the principles of equal treatment
and equity. As a result of that decision the applicant has no
entitlement whatever to remission of the extra charge even
though no negligence can be attributed to it and it is in a
special situation. The applicant claims that it is thereby being
treated differently to an undertaking requesting remission of
import or export duties. This also creates a gap in the legal
protection afforded it. This gap, the applicant argues, is at odds
with the principle of legal certainty.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 of 30 June 1981 on the
common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ 1981
L 177 of 01.7.1981, pp 4-31).

(2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2670/81 of 14 September
1981 laying down detailed implementing rules in respect of sugar
production in excess of the quota (OJ 1981 L 262 of 16.9.1981,
pp 14-16).

(3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 on the
repayment or remission of import or export duties (OJ 1979
L 175 of 12.7.1979, pp 1-7).

(4) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302 of
19.10.1992, pp 1-50).

Action brought on 7 August 2002 by Daniel Callebaut
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-241/02)

(2002/C 247/36)

(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 7 August 2002 by Daniel Callebaut,
residing in Mondorf-les-Bains (Luxembourg), represented by
Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers.

12.10.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 247/23

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

— annul the decision of the Commission not to include the
applicant’s name in the list of officials most deserving of
promotion to Grade B 2 and the decision not to promote
him to that grade in the 2001 promotions procedure;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case, an official at Grade B 3
working for the defendant, challenges the appointing auth-
ority’s refusal to promote him to Grade B 2 in the context of
the 2001 promotions procedure.

In support of his arguments, the applicant alleges infringement
of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and breach of the
that officials should have
principles of equal
reasonable career prospects and of the principle of sound
administration.

treatment,

Action brought on 12 August 2002 by J against Com-
mission of the European Communities

(Case T-243/02)

(2002/C 247/37)

By decision of 23 July 2001, the Commission department to
which the applicant is posted requested that proceedings be
initiated to recommence other proceedings allegedly initiated
previously for a finding of professional incompetence of the
applicant. According to the applicant, the Director General of
DG ADMIN interpreted that request as a request to ‘initiate
proceedings under Article 51 of the Staff Regulations’.

the documents on which his
The applicant claims that
department based its request show the imprecise way in which
it is handling the file. The file in no way demonstrates that the
proceedings referred to were initiated in 1994 and 1996.

In support of his application, the applicant alleges:

— lack of precision as regards the reopening of former
proceedings under Article 51 of the Staff Regulations or
the opening of new proceedings, without setting out the
applicant’s conduct complained of;

— infringement of the rule audi alteram partem;

— infringement of the principle non bis in idem;

— breach of the principle that legitimate expectations are to

be protected;

— breach of the principle of proportionality;

— error of assessment of the facts and misuse of powers;

— lack of statement of reasons;

(Language of the case: French)

— infringement of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 August 2002 by J, represented
by Juan Ramón Iturriagagoitia Bassas, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the appointing authority of 14 Feb-
ruary 2002 rejecting the applicant’s complaint of
29 December 2001;

— annul the decision of 23 July 2001 asking DG ADMIN ‘to
initiate proceedings for a finding of repeated professional
shortcomings as soon as possible’;

— annul the decision of 19 September 2001 concerning the
initiation of proceedings under Article 51 of the Staff
Regulations;

— award damages to the applicant for the non-material
damage suffered by him, amounting to EUR 25 000;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Action brought on 9 August 2002 by G.D. Searle LLC
(formerly known as G.D. Searle & Co) against the Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs)

(Case T-244/02)

(2002/C 247/38)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
9 August 2002 by G.D. Searle LLC (formerly known as
G.D. Searle & Co), represented by Graham Farrington, Farring-
ton & Co Solicitors, Reading (UK).