Case T-389/02: Action brought on 24 December 2002 by Sergio Sandini against the Court of Justice of the European Communities
Date: 2003-02-22
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European official, appeal to the Court (EU), indemnification, occupational disease

22.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/41

wood procurement undertaking and a logistics undertaking in
Arneburg bei Stendal in the Land Sachsen-Anhalt, Germany,
and also against the provision of an 80 % surety for a loan of
EUR 464,550 million.

Action brought on 24 December 2002 by Sergio Sandini
against the Court of Justice of the European Communities

The applicants claim that the Commission did not fully adhere
to the guidelines and general regulations. It failed to examine
the sectoral effects of the plans on wood as a resource
and adopted too wide a procurement radius. That wide
procurement radius leads in their submission to higher costs
and thus the unprofitability of the undertaking, whereas, if a
smaller procurement radius were used, forest resources would
not be sufficient to supply all wood-processing undertakings
in the region.

The Commission failed to take account of the fact that the aid
beneficiary’s own share was less than the necessary 25 %.

The Commission calculated the number of indirectly created
jobs at too high a figure, so that, instead of the factor of 1,5, a
factor of 1,25 should have been used. The maximum permiss-
ible intensity of aid was therefore only 26,25 %.

In addition, the aid proportion of a State guarantee for a loan
was calculated too low, so that, on a correct calculation, there
was an aid intensity of 33,31 %, which even exceeded the
maximum aid intensity approved by the Commission of
31,5 %.

Council Regulation (EC) No 659/99 of 22 March 1999 laying
down detailed rules for the application of Article 88 EC (1) was
infringed, since no formal investigation procedure was opened,
although the Commission had cause for concern. The appli-
cants were thereby hindered in the exercise of their procedural
rights and limited in their right to a hearing.

Since the regional aid guidelines and the provisions of the
multisectoral regional aid framework were not complied with,
none of the exceptions in Article 87(3)(a) and (c) of the EC
Treaty can apply.

The Commission further infringed Article 2, Article 3(1)(i),
Article 6, and the third indent of Article 174(1) of the EC
Treaty, as it failed to take account of the environmental impact
when making its decisions. In the applicants’ submission, the
plans being supported would lead to overfelling in order to
meet requirements.

( 1) OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.

(Case T-389/02)

(2003/C 44/77)

(Language of the case: French)

the European
An action against the Court of
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 24 December 2002 by
Sergio Sandini, residing in Ehlange (Luxembourg), represented
by Juan Ramon Iturriagagoitia and Karine Delvolvé, lawyers.

Justice of

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Court of Justice given on
24 September 2002 and concerning Complaint 2/02-
R(e) lodged by the applicant on 25 January 2002 against
the decision of 25 October 2001;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant, as compensation
for the damage that he has suffered and will in future
suffer, the sum of EUR 350 000, subject to all necessary
reservations, together with default interest at the rate of
10 % per annum from 7 October 1999 until the date of
payment;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official of the Court of Justice, challenges
that institution’s refusal to compensate him for the damage
suffered as a result of his occupational disease, which has
already been recognised by decision of the appointing auth-
ority of 31 May 2001, adopted under Article 73 of the Staff
Regulations, and on the basis of which a sum was paid to him.

The pleas relied on in support of this application are similar to
those in Case T 255/02 H v Court of Justice (OJ C 274 of
9.11.2002, p. 26).