Case T-385/02: Action brought on 19 December 2002 by Marta Andreasen against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-02-22
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commissioner, accountant, action for annulment (EU), administrative sanction, reassignment

C 44/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.2.2003

Action brought on 19 December 2002 by Marta Andreas-
en against the Commission of the European Communities

— Breach of Article 50 of the Staff Regulations by using the

applicant’s transfer as a punitive measure, and

(Case T-385/02)

(2003/C 44/75)

(Language of the case: English)

— Breach of Article 7 of the Staff Regulations through the
adoption of a disproportionate and unnecessary measure,
resulting in the applicant’s appointment to a post that is
not suited to her category and grade.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 19 December 2002 by Marta
Andreasen, Brussels, Belgium, represented by Ian S. Forrester,
QC.

Action brought on 23 December 2002 by Kronoply
GmbH & Co. KG and Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG against
the Commission of the European Communities

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the implied decision of the Commission rejecting
the applicant’s appeal against her removal from the post
of Accounting Officer

— annul the implied decision of the Commission rejecting
the applicant’s appeal against her transfer to the post of
Principal Adviser

— award her pecuniary damages for an amount of money
to be fixed by the Court, plus interest at 5 % or at such
other rate as may be fixed by the Court

(Case T-388/02)

(2003/C 44/76)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 December 2002 by Kronoply
GmbH & Co. KG and Kronotex GmbH & Co. KG, Heiligengra-
be, Germany, represented by R. Nierer, Rechtsanwalt.

— award her the costs of the present action.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

— annul the Commission’s decision of 19 June 2002 (State
Aid No N 240/2002) not to raise any objection to the
Federal Republic of Germany granting State aid to
Zellstoff Stendal GmbH;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

The purpose of the present action is to challenge the Decision
to remove the applicant from office as Accounting Officer and
Bugdet Execution Director in Directorate General Budget and
to transfer her to the position of principal Adviser in Director-
ate General Personnel and Administration.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her conclusions, the applicant submits:

— Breach of the principle of good administration. Failure to
state reasons for the removal in question, and violation
of the Commission’s duty of adequate reasoning for
adoption of a decision having legal effect.

The applicants produce timber-based materials from freshly
felled pine,
including [...] oriented structural boards. Their
action is brought against the Commission’s decision to raise
no objection to the granting of a non-repayable subsidy
of EUR 109,161 million and an investment allowance of
EUR 165,515 million to Zellstoff Stendal GmbH for the
construction of a cellulose factory and the establishment of a