Case T-106/03: Action brought on 14 March 2003 by Hans McAuley against the Council of the European Union
Date: 2003-05-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of the European Union, action for annulment (EU), report, staff assessment

10.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/47

concerning the withdrawal of the contribution of the European
Regional Development Fund (ERDF) granted, in the form of a
global subsidy in support of the activities of an ‘Information
centre for collaboration between undertakings and the pro-
motion of investment’, by Commission Decision C(93) 256/4
of 16 February 1993 as part of the Community support
framework for Community structural operations in Sicily in
pursuance of Objective 1, and the recovery of amounts already
paid by the Commission by virtue of that contribution.

In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:

— Infringement of Article 24 of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 4253/88 (1) of 19 December 1988,
laying down
provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/
88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different
Structural Funds between themselves and with the oper-
ations of the European Investment Bank and the other
existing financial instruments inasmuch as the CIS did
not wilfully misuse the approved subsidy but was unable
to supplement it through no fault of its own, the fault
being exclusively that of the Sicilian regional adminis-
tration which delayed in drawing up the contract between
the defendant and the CIS.

— Infringement of clause 14 of the abovementioned agree-
ment inasmuch as the Commission should have acknowl-
edged the reimbursement of the expense incurred, par-
ticularly in view of the fact that in the present case the
intermediary was not able to carry out the planned
activities for unforeseeable reasons beyond its control.

The applicant also pleads breach of the principles of force
majeure, proportionality and legitimate expectations and, in
the present case, misuse of powers.

( 1) OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Ms Dionyssopoulou’s definitive staff report dated

20 December 2002;

— order the Council to pay damages in the amount of

EUR 8 000;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in this case contests the assessments contained
in her definitive staff report for the period from 1 July 1999
to 30 June 2001.

She alleges in that respect breach of the Guide to Staff Reports
and a manifest error of assessment. These are apparent in
particular from the implied criticism that the applicant did not
participate fully in all the tasks of the service on medical
grounds.

Action brought on 14 March 2003 by Hans McAuley
against the Council of the European Union

(Case T-106/03)

(2003/C 112/88)

(Language of the case: French)

Action brought on 17 March 2003 by Triantafyllia
Dionyssopoulou against the Council of the European
Union

(Case T-105/03)

(2003/C 112/87)

(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 17 March 2003 by Triantafyllia Dionysso-
poulou, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by François
Renard, lawyer.

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 14 March 2003 by Hans McAuley, residing
in Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium), represented by Sébastien
Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis et Étienne Marchal,
lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision finalising the applicant’s definitive staff
report for the period from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2001;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

C 112/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.5.2003

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant puts forward two pleas in law in support of his
application.

— Breach of the obligation as to circumspection, of the
principles of proper administraion and sound manage-
ment and of the principles of independence and impar-
tiality. It is claimed that the contested staff report was
drawn up by a head of unit whose appointment was
challenged by the applicant before the Court of First
Instance. The applicant submits that in those circum-
stances that assessor should have disqualified himself.

— Breach of the obligation to state reasons, of rights of
defence and of Article 26 of the Staff Regulations and
manifest error of assessment. In this plea the applicant
claims that the contested report was drawn up on the
basis of statements by unidentified persons who did not
sign it, that the assessors did not consult the persons
proposed by the applicant and that the second assessor
gave no explanation as to why assessments by the first

assessor which were favorable to the applicant were
removed.

Removal from the register of Case T-100/99 (1)

(2003/C 112/89)

(Language of the Case: Dutch)

By order of 25 February 2003 the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
T-100/99: Campina Melkunie B.V. v Commission of the
European Communities.

(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.