Case T-316/02: Action brought on 15 October 2002 by Marie-Claude Girardot against theCommission of the European Communities
Date: 2002-12-07
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), competition (EU), equal treatment, regulations for civil servants, servant (EU)

C 305/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

7.12.2002

In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:

— the retroactive application of

the contested decision
infringes the principles underlying recovery of sums
overpaid and,
the Staff
Regulations as well as the principles of legitimate expec-
tations and sound administration;

in particular, Article 85 of

— for the purpose of Article 67 of the Staff Regulations, the
orphan’s pension is not of like nature to the dependent
child allowance. Therefore, the payments made by the
administration until February 2002 were not manifestly
irregular; rather, it is the deductions under the contested
decision which are in point of fact irregular.

Action brought on 11 October 2002 by David Meca-
Medina and Igor Majcen against the Commission of the
European Communities

(Case T-313/02)

(2002/C 305/62)

(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 11 October 2002 by David Meca-
Medina, residing in Barcelona (Spain), and Igor Majcen, residing
in Ljubljana (Slovenia), represented by J.-L. Dupont, lawyer.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

They claim that the Commission manifestly erred in fact and
in law in finding that, with respect to anti-doping rules, the
IOC is not an undertaking for the purposes of Community
law. It is clear that the IOC cannot be treated in the same way
as a public institution providing social security services and
that it does not exercise the prerogatives of a public authority.
Moreover, the rules in question affect the conduct of all
athletes on the market for the sports which the applicants
perform.

In addition, the applicants claim that the Commission commit-
ted a manifest error of assessment in finding that,
in the
present case, the limitation on the freedom of athletes is not a
restriction of competition within the meaning of Article 81
EC, on the ground that such a limitation is inherent in the
organisation and smooth running of competitive sport. The
Commission’s findings constitute a manifest misapplication of
the criteria laid down by the Court of Justice in paragraph 97
of the judgment in Wouters (1) and the restrictive effects of the
IOC rules in question are clearly not inherent in the pursuit of
the praiseworthy aims of
the campaign against doping.
According to the applicants, it is for the Commission — in
accordance with the ‘necessity test’ and/or the ‘proportionality
test’ — to declare that a rule which has been proven to have
no scientific basis can in no way satisfy the requirements of
such tests.

Finally, the Commission’s assessment is manifestly incorrect in
so far as it fails to recognise Article 49 EC as having any direct
horizontal effect. It must be found that, since they do not
satisfy a ‘test of necessity’, the contested IOC rules also infringe
Article 49 EC.

(1) Case C-309/99 Wouters [2002] ECR I-1577.

— annul the Commission’s decision notified to the appli-
cants on 5 August 2002 rejecting the complaint of
31 May 2001 against the International Olympic Com-
mittee;

Action brought on 15 October 2002 by Marie-Claude
Girardot against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested decision,
the Commission rejected the
complaint lodged by the applicants, who are professional
swimmers, that certain practices and rules of the International
Olympic Committee (IOC) concerning the fight against doping
were contrary to European competition law. The applicants
objected, in particular, to the fact that, in connection with the
detection of the substance nandrolone, the IOC continues to
apply a maximum level which has now been found to lack
scientific merit.

(Case T-316/02)

(2002/C 305/63)

(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 15 October 2002 by Marie-Claude

7.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 305/31

Girardot, residing at L’Haye les Roses (France), represented
by Eric Boigelot,
lawyer, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decisions of the selection board of 5 and 30 July
2001 to exclude from consideration the application of
the applicant in internal competition COM/R/502211/
2001, as advertised in the combined notice of vacancies
and of internal competitions of 28 May 2001;

— annul the decision expressly rejecting the applicant’s
complaint, the said complaint having been lodged on
29 January 2002 and rejected by an express decision
receipt of which was acknowledged by the applicant on
15 July 2002;

— order the defendant to pay the costs in any event.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant entered the service of the Commission on
1 February 1996. She initially worked there as a national
expert on secondment and subsequently as a member of the
temporary staff. She applied to take part in internal compe-
tition COM/R/502211/2001 for the recruitment of officials.
According to information received by her, the selection board
for that competition found that, as at 1 January 2001, she had
not completed five years’ service as a member of the temporary
staff, so that her name could not be included in the list of
candidates admitted to the tests.

The applicant contests that rejection. She argues that account
should also have been taken of the period during which she
was in the Commission’s service as a national expert on
secondment. There is nothing to suggest, prima facie, that a
candidate in an internal competition who has been a national
expert on secondment prior to being a member of the

temporary staff should not possess skills and abilities at least
equal to, if not superior to, those of candidates who are in the
service of the institution only by virtue of their status as
members of the temporary staff. Thus, the Commission was
not in a position to show that the exclusion of a candidate
who has been a national expert on secondment prior to
becoming a member of the temporary staff can be justified in
the interests of the service.

In support of her action, the applicant also pleads:

— infringement of the first paragraph of Article 27 of the

Staff Regulations;

— infringement of
treatment;

the general principle of equality of

— infringement of the general principle that all administrat-
ive decisions must be based on legally valid reasons;

— infringement of the first paragraph of Article 4 and the
first paragraph of Article 29 of the Staff Regulations.

Removal from the register of Case T-116/02 (1)

(2002/C 305/64)

(Language of the case: French)

By order of 10 September 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-116/02: Antonio Aresu v Commission of the European
Communities.

(1) OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.