Case T-372/02: Action brought on 13 December 2002 by Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-02-08
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: ECHO, European Commission, European Ombudsman, action for annulment (EU), administration of the Institutions, humanitarian aid, infringement of EU law

8.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/21

Action brought on 13 December 2002 by Internationaler
Hilfsfonds e.V. against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-372/02)

(2003/C 31/30)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 December 2002 by Interna-
tionaler Hilfsfonds e.V., Rosbach, Germany, represented by
Dr. iur. H. Kaltenecker, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare void the decision of the defendant of 22 October

2002;

— order the defendant to reinstate the applicant in the
position he had in 1996 when he had applied to become
a partner of the Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO) of the
European Community, in which position he would have
been if the defendant’s several maladministrations had
not occurred;

— or, alternatively, order the defendant to invite the appli-
cant to sign the Framework Partnership Agreement now
in force;

— order the defendant to reimburse to the applicant the
costs he had to bear in pursuing a complaint against the
European Commission at the office of the European
Ombudsman, amounting at EUR 14 562,00;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs arising in
connection with this application as well as the cost of the
present procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

humanitarian aid. In 1996, the applicant applied to become a
partner of the European Community Humanitarian Office
(ECHO) and to sign a Framework Partnership Agreement. In
1999, the applicant was also informed that meanwhile new
conditions for the Framework Partnership Agreement had
entered into force and that its application would be considered
under these new provisions. In 2001, it was informed on the
steps taken by ECHO upon receipt of the application in 1996.

In 2001, the applicant lodged a complaint with the European
Ombudsman for the irresponsible behaviour of ECHO and
maladministration. The Ombudsman concluded that there
were instances of maladministration and made several critical
remarks.

the applicant

requested that ECHO would
Subsequently,
reinstitute him in the position it had in 1996, before the
maladministrations occurred and that appropriate disciplinary
measures would be taken against the staff of ECHO responsible
for these maladministrations. The applicant contests the
decision of the defendant in which it refuses to reinstitute the
applicant or to seek an alternative and compensatory solution.

The applicant submits that the defendant has violated the
rules defined in the European Code of Good Administrative
Behaviour, has violated the rights of the applicant and has
manipulated the applicant’s file.

According to the applicant, the defendant did not respect the
principle that applications must be examined in the light of
the requirements defined in the rules in force at the moment
of the application. Likewise, the applicant was not informed of
the request for information sent by the defendant to the
German Foreign Office and the suspension of the application.
The applicant also claims that he was not heard on these
decisions. Furthermore, the applicant submits that its appli-
cation was not dealt with within a reasonable period.

The applicant claims that the defendant also violated articles 5
and 10 of the EC Treaty by insisting on an audit of the
applicant’s organisational, structural and financial situation.
This competence lies, according to the applicant, solely with
the German authorities.

The applicant is a non-governmental organisation, established
under German law and working in the field of international

The applicant finally claims that the defendant should grant a
financial compensation for the costs incurred following the
complaint lodged with the European Ombudsman.