Case T-332/02: Action brought on 30 October 2002 by Nordspedizionieri Danielis Livio & Co., a partnership between Livio Danielis and Domenico D'Alessandro, in liquidation, against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-01-11
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: action for annulment (EU), customs drawback, packaging, tobacco industry

C 7/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

11.1.2003

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Registrar of the Court of Justice
to award the applicant 0.58 promotion points in respect
of 1998 and to award only one promotion point per year
in respect of 1999 and 2000;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is challenging the decision of the appointing
authority to award her 0.58 promotion points in respect of
1998 and to award her only one promotion point per year in
respect of 1999 and 2000.

The applicant claims that no staff report has been drawn up
for her throughout the period in which she worked for the
defendant as a member of the temporary staff, that is to say
from 1 June to 30 November 1998. Nor was any report
drawn up in her respect during her probation period (from
1 December 1998 to 31 August 1999). Consequently, only
the analytical assessments in the staff report for the period
from 1 September 1999 to 31 December 2000 were taken
into consideration, which prevented the appointing authority
from taking account of the applicant’s ‘merits’ as set out in the
general assessment and in the reporting officer’s observations.

In support of her claims, the applicant alleges:

— infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;

— infringement of paragraph 5 of the ‘Instructions relatives
aux promotions’ appended to the decision of the Court
of 18 October 2000;

— manifest error of assessment in the present case.

— annul the decision of 30 January 2002 of the Director
General of Directorate General A of the Council to
terminate the procedure under Article 29(1)(a) of the
Staff Regulations to fill the post of Language Adviser in
the English and Irish Language Division and to proceed
to the next stage, namely the organisation of an internal
competition under Article 29(1)(b);

— order the Council to pay to the applicant the sum of
EUR 10 000 000 by way of compensation for material
and non-material damage;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By judgment of 14 June 2001 in Case T-230/99, the Court
of First Instance annulled the decisions of the Council of
15 December 1998 appointing Ms K to the post of language
adviser in the English Language Division and rejecting the
candidature of the applicant for the said post. The Council
appealed that judgment. The appeal was held manifestly
inadmissible
of
13 December 2001.

the Court of

by order of

Justice

The applicant claims that, in consequence of that judgment,
the Council was obliged to re-examine his application for the
post in question. By failing to carry out such re-examination,
the Council has, in the applicant’s view, infringed Article 233
of the EC Treaty. The applicant further alleges manifest error
of assessment and misuse of powers.

Action brought on 18 October 2002 by Hans Mc Auley
against Council of the European Union

(Case T-324/02)

(2003/C 7/44)

(Language of the case: French)

Action brought on 30 October 2002 by Nordspedizionieri
Danielis Livio & Co., a partnership between Livio Danielis
and Domenico D’Alessandro, in liquidation, against Com-
mission of the European Communities

(Case T-332/02)

(2003/C 7/45)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 18 October 2002 by Hans Mc Auley, residing
in Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium), represented by Albert Cool-
en, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne Marchal, avocats.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 30 October 2002 by Nordspedi-
zionieri Danielis Livio & Co., a partnership between Livio
Danielis and Domenico D’Alessandro, in liquidation, represent-
ed by Gregorio Leone, lawyer.

11.1.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 7/23

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Commission REM 14/01 of
28 June 2002, notified on 2 September 2002, finding no
ground for remission of import duties in respect of
imported goods valued at EUR 256 983,63;

— in the alternative, and subject to all manner of reser-
vations, declare none the less, pursuant to Article 8(19)(b)
of Regulation EEC No 2144/87, that in the present case a
remission of import duties is due to the applicants in
respect of the 8 010 kilograms confiscated from all the
accused in the criminal proceedings;

— order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants in the present case are contesting the defend-
ant’s decision finding that there is no ground for the remission
of import duties amounting to EUR 256 983 requested by the
Italian Republic on 4 June 2001 (DOSSIER REM 14/01,
notified in EEC C(2002) 2384 final).

The applicants were asked to pay customs duty on two
consignments of cigarettes amounting to more than LIT
2.5 billion, as they then were, dating from as far back as 1992.
They challenged the order for payment before the Italian
courts and sought a remission from the Commission, which
refused it.

The present application has been brought under Article 13 of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 on the
repayment or remission of import or export duties (1). The
applicants claim that they could not be required to pay
customs duty in that there are in the present case ‘special
situations’ such as to preclude such a requirement of payment,
since they had placed legitimate reliance on commercial and
transport documents submitted to them when the goods were
declared at customs which gave to understand that the goods
were packaging.

The special situation giving entitlement to remission arises
from the fact that the customs declarant has no way of being
able to check the content of the lorry crossing the border and
furthermore that the documents appeared to be in order, while
the consignment cleared customs under the ‘conformity’
procedure by the customs authority.

Furthermore, in the present case, there was no ‘negligence’ or
inasmuch as the
‘deception’, as required under Article 13,
applicants properly declared the goods, in accordance with the
commercial and transport documents.

The applicants further request, in the alternative, the appli-
cation of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2144/
87 of 13 July 1987 on customs debt (2), which precludes
payment of customs duty in respect of those goods which
have been confiscated.

(1) OJ 1979 L 175, p. 1.
(2) OJ 1987 L 201, p. 15.

Action brought on 6 November 2002 by Susan Christen-
sen against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-336/02)

(2003/C 7/46)

(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 6 November 2002 by Susan
Christensen, residing in Ispra (Italy), represented by Georges
Vandersanden and Laure Levi, avocats.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Selection Board for Competition
COM/R/A/2000 of 3 December 2001 refusing to include
the applicant on the reserve list on the ground that she
tests, the minimum
failed to obtain, during the oral
number of points to be included and,
in so far as
necessary, the decision of the authority empowered to
conclude contracts of employment (AECE) of 23 July
2002 rejecting the applicant’s complaint, notified on
30 July 2002;

— annul all the operations and acts relating to the compe-
tition subsequent to the irregularities contained in the
in particular, the
decision of 3 December 2001 and,
reserve list and the appointment decisions taken on the
basis of that list;

— order the defendant, in any event, to adopt any measure
necessary to ensure that the applicant’s rights are restored;

— otherwise, order the defendant to pay damages assessed

at EUR 22 088,34, subject to increase;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.