Case T-338/02: Action brought on 13 November 2002 by the SEGI association, Araitz Zubimendi Izaga and Aritza Galarraga against Council of the European Union
Date: 2003-01-11
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of the European Union, action for annulment (EU), association, fight against crime, rights of the defence, terrorism

C 7/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

11.1.2003

Pleas in law and main arguments

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

The applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of the
selection board in competition COM/R/A/2000 refusing to
include her name on the reserve list.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her claims, the applicant relies on four pleas
in law. First, she alleges breach of the principle of non-
discrimination, breach of essential procedural requirements,
infringement of the rules governing the organisation of tests
and infringement of Article 3 of Annex III
to the Staff
Regulations. In the applicant’s view, the selection board was
not composed of a stable number of members and did not
carry out its work impartially.

The present action seeks the annulment of the decision by
which the applicant was notified of her non-admission to the
tests in competition COM/A/10/01 because she was beyond
the age-limit provided for in the notice of competition.

The pleas in law and main arguments have previously been
put forward in T-219/02 Lutz Herrera v Commission (1).

The applicant in her second plea in law alleges infringement
of the competition notice.

(1) OJ 2002 C 233, p. 30.

Third, she alleges breach of
the service,
infringement of Article 12 of the Conditions of Employment
of Other Servants of the European Communities and manifest
error of assessment.

the interest of

Finally, the applicant pleads breach of the principle of equal
treatment between men and women, breach of the equal
opportunity policy, breach of positive actions and breach of
the principle according to which the administration is bound
by the acts which it adopts.

Action brought on 11 November 2002 by Olga Lutz
Herrera against Commission of the European Communi-
ties

(Case T-337/02)

(2003/C 7/47)

(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 11 November 2002 by Olga Lutz
Herrera, residing in Brussels, represented by Ramón García-
Gallardo and Javier Guillem Carrau, lawyers.

Action brought on 13 November 2002 by the SEGI
association, Araitz Zubimendi Izaga and Aritza Galarraga
against Council of the European Union

(Case T-338/02)

(2003/C 7/48)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 13 November 2002 by the SEGI association,
Araitz Zubimendi Izaga and Aritza Galarraga, established in
Baiona (France) and in Donostia (Spain), Araitz Zubimendi
(Spain), and Aritza Galarraga,
Izaga, residing in Hernani
residing in Senpere (France), represented by Didier Rouget,
avocat.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— order the defendant to pay compensation amounting to
EUR 1 000 000
and
the
EUR 100 000 to each of the other two applicants, Araitz
Zubimendi Izaga and Aritza Galarraga;

association

SEGI

to

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission refusing Olga
Lutz’s application to take part in COM/A/10/01; and

— find that those amounts give rise to default interest at the
rate of 4,5 % per annum with effect from the date of the
judgment of the Court of First Instance and until actual
payment is effected;

11.1.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 7/25

— order the defendant to bear their own costs and to pay

those incurred by the applicants.

Action brought on 14 November 2002 by the Regiona
Siciliana against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

Pleas in law and main arguments

SEGI and its two representatives are seeking compensation for
the damage allegedly suffered as a result of the abovementioned
association’s name having been included in the list of terrorist
persons, groups and bodies, pursuant to Common Position
2001/931/CFSP (1), adopted on 27 December 2001, confirmed
by Council Common Position 2002/340/CFSP (2) adopted on
2 May 2001, and Council Common Position 2002/940/
CFSP (3) adopted on 17 June 2002.

In support of their arguments, the applicants claim that the
common position, which is the subject-matter of the action, is
vitiated by a number of irregularities, namely breach of a
number of fundamental rights, liberties and principles, protect-
ed under the Convention of Human Rights and the Charter of
Fundamental Rights, such as the right to the presumption of
innocence, the right to a proper hearing, in so far as there is
no means of challenging the common position in question
through the courts, the right to freedom of speech, in particular
so far as concerns the right to self-determination and the
search for a solution to the Basque conflict by negotiation, and
the right to privacy.

The applicants also claim that the procedure for the adoption
of Decision 2001/931/CFSP was unlawful
in that on
27 December 2001 the Council adopted four measures to
combat terrorism and to define the list of terrorist persons,
groups and bodies. However, those four measures are closely
linked and it is impossible to understand one without know-
ledge of the other three. Moreover,
it would appear that
the European Parliament was consulted only in relation to
the other measures,
Regulation No 2580/2001 and not
in particular Common Position 2001/931/CFSP. The latter
measures, although they are,
terms, common
positions, contain provisions which fall within the scope of
JHA (Justice and Home Affairs) or which reflect framework
decisions or positions which should have been the subject
of consultation with the European Parliament, pursuant to
Article 39(1) of the Treaty on European Union.

in formal

The applicants also allege breach of the rights of the defence
and of the obligation to provide reasons.

( 1) OJ L 344, of 28.12.2001, p. 93.
( 2) OJ L 116, of 3.5.2002, p. 75.
( 3) OJ L 160, of 18.6.2002, p. 32.

(Case T-341/02)

(2003/C 7/49)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities on 14 November 2002 by the
Regiona Siciliana, represented by the Avvocatura dello Stato,
against the Commission of the European Communities.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s decision No 109206 of 5 Sep-
tember 2002 on the closure of the major project ‘Messina-
Palermo motorway’ (ERDF No 93.05.03.001 — ARINCO
No 93.IT.16.009) and order the Commission of the
European Communities to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision, which concerns the major project
‘Messina-Palermo motorway’ partly financed by contributions
from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), closed
the intervention procedure and decided that the costs of the
instalments which had been completed by the date of adoption
the decision were eligible. Consequently the decision
of
concluded that there would be a settlement of the ERDF
contribution by unblocking EUR 26 378 246 with a balance
to be recovered of EUR 58 036 177.

In support of
following arguments:

its claims the applicant puts forward the

— The contested decision is ultra vires in so far as it appears
to have been issued by the Director General for Regional
Policy instead of by the Commission itself. Additionally,
in the decisions of 22 December 1993 and 28 July 1995
adopted earlier in the course of the project, the deadline
by which costs had to have been incurred in order to be
eligible for cofinancing was fixed as 31 December 1997,
whereas in the contested decision the eligibility of costs
was for the first time correlated to the functionality,
within a reasonable period of time, of the works in
respect of which the costs were incurred.