Case T-136/03: Action brought on 22 April 2003 by Robert Charles Schochaert against the Council of the European Union
Date: 2003-06-21
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of the European Union, abuse of power, assistant, promotion, psychological harassment

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