Case T-132/03: Action brought on 15 April 2003 by Paola Casini against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-06-21
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, abuse of power, action for annulment (EU), administrator, equal treatment, promotion

C 146/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.6.2003

Action brought on 11 April 2003 by Akzo Nobel Chemi-
cals Ltd. and Akcros Chemicals Ltd. against the Com-
mission of the European Communities

(Case T-125/03)

(2003/C 146/75)

(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 11 April 2003 by Akzo Nobel
Chemicals Ltd., Hersham, United Kingdom, and Akcros
Chemicals Ltd., Hersham, United Kingdom, represented by
Mr C. Swaak, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— to review under Article 230 the legality of the Decision
in as far as it has been interpreted by the Commission
as legitimating and/or constituting the basis of
the
Commission’s action (which is not severable from the
Decision), of seizing and/or reviewing and/or reading
documents covered by legal professional privilege;

— to annul under Article 231 the Decision in as far as it has
been interpreted by the Commission as legitimating and/
or constituting the basis of the Commission’s action
(which is not severable from the Decision), of seizing
and/or reviewing and/or reading documents covered by
legal professional privilege;

— to require that the Commission, to comply with the
judgement annulling the Decision, return documents
covered by legal professional privilege and not to use
their contents in any way;

— to order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs in

the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pursuant to Commission Decision C(2003)559/4 of 10 Febru-
ary 2003, the Commission conducted an on the spot investi-
gation on the premises of the applicants in Eccles, Manchester,
the
United Kingdom.
Commission reviewed, copied and seized several documents.

In the course of the investigation,

Some of these documents became the object of a disagreement
between the applicants and the Commission. According to the
applicants, the seizure of those documents violated the general
principle of legal professional privilege.

In support of their application, the applicants submit that the
Commission has committed an infringement of the Treaty, an
infringement of general principles of Community Law and has
violated Regulation 17/62 as interpreted by the European
Courts.

More specifically, the applicants claim that the Commission
has violated the principle of legal professional privilege by
violating the procedures relating to the application of the
principle as set out by the European Courts. Furthermore, the
applicant submits that the Commission violated the principle
of legal professional privilege by its unjustified and immediate
denial of its application during the on the spot investigation
and the seizure of some of
the
applicants submit that the Commission violated the applicants’
fundamental rights, such as the right to privacy.

the documents. Finally,

Action brought on 15 April 2003 by Paola Casini against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-132/03)

(2003/C 146/76)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 15 April 2003 by Paola Casini,
residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden,
avocat.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the list of officials promoted to Grade A 6 which
was published on 18 August 2002 to be annulled in so
far as the applicant’s name is not included on that list;

— order compensation to be paid to the applicant in respect
of the material and non-material damage which she has
suffered, provisionally estimated at a total of EUR 20 000,
in respect of which the material damage relates to
the financial readjustment of the applicant’s salary to
correspond to Grade A 6 from the date of publication of
the list of those promoted (increased by default interest
fixed at 7 % per annum);

— order the defendant to pay all of the costs.

21.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/43

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 28 April 2003 by Nuova Agricast S.r.l.
against the Commission of the European Communities

In support of her action, the applicant pleads failure to state
reasons, breach of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and
infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, manifest
errors of assessment, breach of the duty of care and infringe-
ment of the principle of sound administration, infringement
of the principle of equality of opportunity and, finally, misuse
of powers.

(Case T-139/03)

(2003/C 146/78)

(Language of the case: Italian)

Action brought on 22 April 2003 by Robert Charles
Schochaert against the Council of the European Union

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 28 April 2003 by Nuova Agricast
S.r.l., represented by Michele Arcangelo Calabrese, avvocato.

(Case T-136/03)

(2003/C 146/77)

(Language of the case: French)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested measures;

— Order the European Commission to pay the costs.

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 22 April 2003 by Robert Charles Schochaert,
residing in Brussels, represented by Jean A. Martin, avocat.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the Council to pay to the applicant EUR 225 702,94

by way of compensation, and order it to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a former Council official, seeks by way of the
present action to recover compensation in respect of the
damage which he claims to have suffered through the defend-
ant’s refusal to promote him to Grade B 1 during the course of
promotions from 1978 to 2000.

The applicant contends that the defendant has refused, since
1978, to promote him on the ground that his duties did not
involve the exercise of responsibilities justifying promotion
vis-à-vis other candidates for such promotion, this being a
ground which, in the applicant’s view, is unlawful and amounts
to a misuse of power for which the Council must incur
liability.

The applicant further alleges that he has been the victim of
exclusion and non-physical harassment by a number of his
hierarchical superiors.

By its action, the applicant company is challenging:

1.

2.

3.

the Commission’s letter *D/50721, COMP/G1 D(03)142/
PI/cpb dated 3 February 2003 (concerning consultations
with the authorities of the Member State which had
drawn up the documents);

Commission document SG.B.2/MM D(2003) sent by fax
on 14 March 2003;

the Commission’s
cpb D(03) dated 12 March 2003.

letter

*D/51652, COMP/G1/PI/

In support of its claims, the applicant submits as follows:

— by consulting the authorities of the Member State which
had drawn up the documents requested, and in so doing
even though it was already clear to it that the documents
in issue were excluded from the right of access as being
‘covered’ by the exception ‘inspections and investigations’,
the Commission breached the procedural guarantees
conferred on individuals by Article 4(4) of Regulation
(EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to
European Parliament, Council and Commission docu-
ments (OJ 2001 L 145 of 31 May 2001, p. 43) and the
similarly-worded Article 5(2) of the relevant updating
provisions. The Commission thus infringed its own