Case T-56/03: Action brought on 10 February 2003 by Bioelettrica S.p.A. against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-04-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, appeal to the Court (EU), building industry, energy industry, termination of a contract

26.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 101/47

In support of its claims the applicant alleges, in the alternative,
that the defendant infringed Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17,
Article 253 EC and the principles of proportionality and of
equal treatment by:

and the remuneration corresponding to classification in
the next higher grade and step, together with default
interest at 5,7 % per annum as from 16 March 2001;

— imposing on the applicant a fine in excess of 10 % of its

worldwide turnover;

— order the defendant to pay damages and interests assessed,
ex æquo et bono, at EUR 500 a month as from 16 March
2001 until the date they are paid;

— imposing on the applicant an global fine in respect of

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

allegedly discrete infringements;

— increasing the ‘starting amount’ as a deterrent and on the

ground of aggravating circumstances;

Pleas in law and main arguments

— applying an excessive multiplication factor;

— not reducing the fine on the ground of attenuating
circumstances or by virtue of the ‘Amnesty Notice’ (1).

( 1) Published in OJ 1996 C 207 p. 4.

The applicant in these proceedings challenges the decision of
the appointing authority refusing to classify him in Grade A6,
Step 3, on his taking up his duties with the defendant following
competition EUR/A/154 for the recruitment of administrators
(career bracket A 7/A 6) in auditing and accounting.

In support of his claims he alleges:

— infringement of Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations, of
the decision of 1 September 1983 on the criteria
applicable to appointment to grade and classification in
step on recruitment and of the Administrative Guide;

Action brought on 12 February 2003 by Philippe Brendel
against Commission of the European Communities

— infringement of the principle patere quam ipse legem

fecisti and of equal treatment;

(Case T-55/03)

(2003/C 101/82)

— that there was in the circumstances a manifest error of

assessment;

— disregard of the duty to have regard to the interests of

officials and the duty to state reasons;

(Language of the case: French)

— infringement of Article 39 EC.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 12 February 2003 by Philippe
Brendel, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vander-
sanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision taken by the appointing authority of
3 May 2002 classing the applicant in Grade A 7, Step 2
with effect
from 16 March 2001 and, so far as is
the decision of 25 October 2002,
necessary, annul
notified on 4 November 2002, to reject the applicant’s
complaint;

Action brought on 10 February 2003 by Bioelettrica S.p.A.
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-56/03)

(2003/C 101/83)

(Language of the case: Italian)

— order the defendant to pay the balance of the remuner-
ation consisting of the difference between the remuner-
ation corresponding to classification in Grade A 7, Step 2,

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the

C 101/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.4.2003

European Communities on 10 February 2003 by Bioelettrica
S.p.A., represented by Ombretta Fabe Dal Negro, lawyer.

The pleas in law and principal arguments are similar to those
in Case T-287/01.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1) OJ C 31 of 2.2.2002, p. 15.
(2) Not yet published.

— declare that the European Commission has failed to
perform Contract BM/1007/94 of 12 December 1994
(thermie programme);

— declare the contract terminated by the Commission;

— in any event, order the European Commission to pay to
the applicant compensation — to be decided in separate
proceedings — by way of compensation of the damages
sustained by the applicant as a result of the failure of the
project;

— in the alternative, declare in any event that Bioelettrica
owes no debt to the European Community in respect of
the funding received to date or any interest on the same,
and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action concerns the same project as that in which
the Commission’s decision to withdraw is challenged in Case
T-287/01 Biolettrica v Commission (1) and T-42/03 Lurgi AG
and Lurgi S.p.A. v Commission (2). The applicant relies upon
the statements made by the Commission in the context of the
termie project, as follows:

— 6.9.2001 the Commission stated that the contract was at

an end;

— 20.11.2001 the contract was regarded as still being in

effect;

— 1.3.2002 the Commission confirmed that the contract

was still in effect;

— 26.11.2002 the Commission stated that the contract was
at an end, having been terminated not on 26.11.2002
but on 6.9.2001.

The applicant submits that the Court of First Instance has not
considered the merits of the Commission’s second revocation
of the contract, that being in issue in Case T-287/01, or the
lawfulness of the revocation of 6 September 2001, which was
based on Article 8(2)(f) of the General Conditions, Annex II to
the contract, whereas the termination of 26 November 2002
is based on Article 8(2)(d) of the General Conditions.

Action brought on 20 February 2003 by Acciaierie e
Ferriere Leali Luigi S.p.A. (in liquidation) against the
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-58/03)

(2003/C 101/84)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 February 2003 by Acciaierie e
Ferriere Leali Luigi S.p.A.
(in liquidation), represented by
Giovanni Vezzoli, Gianluca Belotti and Elisabetta Stefania
Piromalli, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

— in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed to take account
of the fact that conduct subsequent to its going into
liquidation (25 November 1998/4 December 1998) can-
not be imputed to Acciaierie e Ferriere Leali Luigi
S.p.A. (in liquidation) and to take account of wrongful
application of the increase in respect of duration to the
whole of the basic fine as well as the specific financial
situation of Acciaierie e Ferriere Leali Luigi S.p.A. (in
liquidation), and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the same decision as that
challenged in Case T-27/03 S.P. v Commission. The pleas in
law and principal arguments are similar to those in that case.
Of particular importance are pleas alleging infringement of the
rights of the defence in the procedure conducted by the