Case T-336/02: Action brought on 6 November 2002 by Susan Christensen against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-01-11
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: action for annulment (EU), administrative competition, appointment of staff, damages, equal treatment

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.

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;