Case T-239/02: Action brought on 8 August 2002 by Commonfood Handelsgesellschaft für Agrar-Produkte mbH against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-10-12
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: CCT duties, European Commission, Thailand, action for annulment (EU), customs regulations, import, import licence, poultry

12.10.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 247/21

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a former Commission official, claims that he
was the victim of harassment by the Commission. He alleges,
in that respect, wilful failure to implement a judgment of the
Court of First Instance (1), breach of the obligation to provide
reasons, breach of the principle of equal treatment and of non-
discrimination and breach by the Commission of its duty to
have regard for the welfare of officials.

( 1) Case T-214/00 X v Commission [2001] ECR FP-IA-143 ; FP-II-

663.

Action brought on 8 August 2002 by Commonfood
Handelsgesellschaft für Agrar-Produkte mbH against the
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-239/02)

(2002/C 247/34)

(Language of the case: German)

Action brought on 2 August 2002 by Christos Michael
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-234/02)

(2002/C 247/33)

(Language of the case: Greek)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 8 August 2002 by Commonfood
Handelsgesellschaft für Agrar-Produkte mbH, of Langen (Ger-
many), represented by K. Landry and L. Harings, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision No REC 4/01 of 5 March

2002;

— order the defendant to reimburse to the applicant the

costs necessarily incurred in the proceedings.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 2 August 2002 by Christos
Michael, resident
in Brussels, represented by K. Tagaras,
Lawyer.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— allow the application;

— annul the contested measures;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This is an action challenging the decision concerning the
appointment of officials to the posts of Deputy Head of Unit
DG FC.A.1 and Head of the Sector ‘Politiques internes et
Agences’ in that unit.

On the basis of oral information provided by the competent
customs authority, to the effect that production of import
certificates for the importation of chickens in the context of
two specific quotas was not necessary, the applicant on 24 July
1995 submitted a declaration in respect of the import in
several consignments of frozen chicken pieces originating in
Thailand under CN Code No 0207 41 10. — The competent
principal customs office initially granted relief from import
duties, but subsequently charged the applicant import duties
amounting to EUR 113 566,14. The applicant raised an
objection to that decision and the national authorities referred
the matter to the Commission for a decision. By the contested
decision, the Commission found that the import duties were
to be entered in the accounts after the event.

The pleas in law and arguments correspond to those advanced
in Case T-309/01 Peter Biegi Nahrungsmittel GmbH v Com-
mission (1).

The applicant pleads infringement of Articles 5, 25, 43 and 45
of the Staff Regulations and of the principle of equal treatment.
He also claims that there was a manifest error of assessment
and misuse of powers in making the contested appointments.

(1) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002, p. 14.