Case T-137/03: Action brought on 23 April 2003 by Ornella Mancini against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-07-05
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU institution, European Commission, European official, abuse of power, action for annulment (EU), appointment of staff, equal treatment, health service, physician

5.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 158/25

Action brought on 18 April 2003 by Common Market
Fertilizers (CMF) against the Commission of the European
Communities

Action brought on 23 April 2003 by Ornella Mancini
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-135/03)

(2003/C 158/45)

(Language of the case: French)

(Case T-137/03)

(2003/C 158/46)

(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 18 April 2003 by Common Market
Fertilizers, a company established in Brussels, represented by
Alastair Sutton and Nathalie Flandin, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Decision REM 03/02;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is a wholesaler of chemical products and in
particular nitrogen solutions. It applied to the French customs
authorities, under Article 239 of Regulation (EC) No 2913/
92 (1), for remission of customs duties in accordance with
Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 3319/94 (2). That appli-
cation was forwarded by the French authorities to the defend-
ant who, by its contested decision, refused remission.

In support of its action, the applicant relies on pleas in law
and arguments which are similar to those relied on by the
same applicant in Case T-134/03.

( 1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
(OJ L 302,

establishing the Community Customs Code
19.10.1992, p. 1).

( 2) Council Regulation (EC) No 3319/94 of 22 December 1994
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of urea
ammonium nitrate solution originating in Bulgaria and Poland,
exported by companies not exempted from the duty, and col-
lecting definitively the provisional duty imposed (OJ L 350,
31.12.1994, p. 20).

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 April 2003 by Ornella Mancini,
residing in Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, avocat.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— set aside the decision of the appointing authority of
28 June 2002 not to appoint the applicant to the post of
medical consultant to the ‘Brussels Medical Service’ Unit
of DG Admin B8;

— set aside the express decision of 23 January 2003
dismissing the complaint lodged by the applicant;

— set aside the appointment of another candidate to the
post of medical consultant, which involved inter alia
rejection of the applicant’s candidature for the vacant
post;

— order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of
EUR 15 000 assessed ex æquo et bono as compensation
for non-material damage and the adverse effect on the
applicant’s career;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, who is a medical doctor, is an official working
in the Commission’s medical service. In response to a notice
of vacancy, she submitted her application for a post of medical
consultant. The appointing authority did not select her and
another candidate was appointed to that post.

The applicant takes the view that the appointing authority has
breached Articles 14, 29(1)(a) and 45(1) of the Staff Regu-
lations and has infringed the principles of legality, equal
treatment of applicants, entitlement to pursue a career, equal
opportunity, and equality as between men and women. In
support of her claims, the applicant submits further that the
appointing authority acted improperly during the appointment
procedure and was guilty of a misuse of powers.

C 158/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.7.2003

According to the applicant, the appointing authority commit-
ted a manifest error of assessment in selecting a candidate who
did not satisfy the conditions set out in the notice of vacancy.
The appointment of that candidate should for that reason be
set aside. The applicant also asserts that there has been an
infringement of the principle of equal treatment and of the
rules governing the deliberations of the selection board. She
claims that certain members of the selection board were
not adequately qualified and/or lacked the impartiality and
objectivity necessary for sitting on such a board. Furthermore,
the staff reports of the applicant and of the candidate appointed
evaluate their respective activities and profiles according to
different criteria and provisions of the Staff Regulations. In
conclusion, the applicant submits that the appointing authority
infringed the principle of equality as between men and women.
She argues that she was more meritorious than the candidate
who was appointed. Moreover, in the event that her merits
should be deemed to have been no more than equivalent to
those of that candidate, priority ought to have been given to
the applicant by reason of the fact that she is a woman.

Action brought on 24 April 2003 by ‘U’ and Others
against the Council of the European Union and the
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-138/03)

(2003/C 158/47)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Council of the European Union and the
Commission of
the European Communities was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 24 April 2003 by ‘U’ and Others, represented by François
Honnorat, lawyer.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— order compensation for the non-material or material
damage suffered by them as a consequence of the
infection of their close relatives with BSE;

— order the defendants to pay the costs.

The applicants submit that the defendants made a manifest
error of assessment, misused their powers and violated the
legitimate expectations of European consumers.

The applicants maintain that the defendants made a manifest
error of assessment in their management of the risks associated
with the BSE epidemic by not recommending a forward
scientific evaluation of the risk of BSE developing BSE in the
various geographical areas of
the Union at the time of
identification of the causes of the epidemic and of adoption of
the first protective measures in the United Kingdom. That
manifest error of assessment is also evidenced by the failure of
the defendants to call for a retrospective study to shed light on
the cause of the infections subsequently recorded in France.

In support of their claims, the applicants submit that the
defendants’ conduct in this case constitutes a misuse of powers
inasmuch as it was aimed only at protecting in an ill-considered
manner the interests of the market and of the beef sector.
According to the applicants, the defendants’ action consisted
in dissuading the Member States from adopting unilateral
protective measures.

The applicants further maintain that the defendants’ internal
disorganisation led their staff to underestimate the risks of BSE
developing and by that very fact constitutes a serious breach
of the legitimate expectations of European consumers.

The applicants draw attention to the abnormal and special
nature of the damage suffered by them as a result of the non-
natural cause of BSE and of the inapplicability of the European
system of producers’ liability for defective products to the case
in point.

Action brought on 28 April 2003 by Forum 187 against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-140/03)

(2003/C 158/48)

Pleas in law and main arguments

(Language of the case: English)

The applicants all
live in France and are victims, either
indirectly or as persons entitled under or through persons who
have died in France, of a ‘variant’ form of Creutzfeldt-Jakob
disease. By this action, the applicants are lodging a claim for
damages to compensate for the material or non-material
damage allegedly suffered as a consequence of the death of
persons infected with BSE.

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 Forum 187,
Brussels, Belgium, represented by Mr A. Sutton and Mr
J. Killick, Barristers.