Case C-187/03 P: Appeal brought on 25 April 2003 by Zisis Drouvis against the judgment delivered on 26 February 2003 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-184/00 between Zisis Drouvis and the Commission, supported by the Council
Date: 2003-07-19
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European official, action for annulment (EU), equal treatment, free movement of workers, pension scheme, right of establishment

C 171/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.7.2003

represented by Vasilios Kontolaimos, State Legal Adviser, and
Stiliani Kharitaki, Member of the State Legal Service, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Greek Embassy, 27
rue Marie-Adélaïde.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul, or otherwise amend, Commission Decision C(2003)
500 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure
incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of
the EAGGF, in respect of the chapter thereof which concerns
financial corrections to the detriment of the Hellenic Republic.
Otherwise, and entirely in the alternative, the correction
imposed must be restricted: (a) solely to the area of the island
of Lesvos or in the alternative of the island of Rhodes; (b) to
expenditure incurred up until 16 February 2001 at the latest;
and (c) to a maximum rate of 2 %.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision adopted by the Commission should be
annulled for the following reasons.

(a)

(b)

(c)

It misinterpreted and misapplied Article 11 of Regulation
No 2019/93, Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Regulation
No 2837/93, Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation No 729/70 as
amended by Regulation No 1287/98, and Article 7(4) of
Regulation No 1258/99.

In the alternative — assuming that the Commission’s
interpretation of the provisions of Regulations No 2019/
93 and No 2837/93 is correct — given the manifest lack
of clarity of the regulations and in accordance with
the guidelines, any misapplication of the Community
provisions connected with that interpretation that may
have occurred should not be regarded as proving the
existence of all the imputed deficiencies of the system or
be taken into account when forming the final decision
regarding the need for imposition of a general correction
and indeed of such a high rate.

The Commission misappraised the facts established in
the course of the check and found without sufficient
reasoning that there were fundamental deficiencies of
a general nature entailing a particularly high risk of
Community resources being lost, having first extrapolated
the findings (which related to the two islands which were
checked) in an impermissible manner so as to cover all
the islands of the Aegean. It thereby ignored the special
features which each island displays and vary in accordance
with location, size, population, land morphology, poten-
tial for production, infrastructure and so forth — special
features which are acknowledged by the very regulations
that are applicable in respect of the islands of the Aegean.

(d) The Commission exceeded the limits of its discretion and
infringed the principle of proportionality since it imposed
such a high correction rate on all the islands of the
Aegean, ignoring the limited risk of loss for the Fund, the
fact that the check was being carried out for the first time,
the fact that the Greek authorities complied immediately
with the recommendations of its staff, and the magnitude
of the consequences — financial and environmental —
which are inversely proportional to the population of
each island and may be catastrophic for the smaller
islands (given that preservation of their olive groves and
their survival are dependent upon the grant of aid).

Appeal brought on 25 April 2003 by Zisis Drouvis against
the judgment delivered on 26 February 2003 by the
Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-184/00 between Zisis
Drouvis and the Commission, supported by the Council

(Case C-187/03 P)

(2003/C 171/15)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 February
2003 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Case T-184/00 between Zisis
Drouvis and the Commission, supported by the Council as
intervener, was brought before the Court of Justice of the
European Communities on 25 April 2003 by Zisis Drouvis,
represented by Ioannis Stamouolis, of the Athens Bar.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— find the appeal lawful and well founded;

— set aside the judgment under appeal delivered by the
Court of First Instance on 26 February 2003 in Case
T-184/00;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Grounds of appeal

First ground:

interpretation

Erroneous
and
application of Article 6(2) ΕU,
Article 14 of the European Con-
vention on Human Rights and
Article 1 of the First Protocol to
that Convention.

19.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/11

Second ground:

interpretation

Erroneous
and
application of Articles 42 EC and
43 EC.

by exposing him to asbestos, a carcinogenic substan-
ce which causes incurable serious illnesses,

Appeal brought on 3 May 2003 by Arnaldo Lucaccioni
against the judgment delivered on 26 February 2003 by
the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Case T-164/01 between
Arnaldo Lucaccioni and the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case C-196/03 P)

(2003/C 171/16)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 26 February
2003 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Case T-164/01 between Arnaldo
Lucaccioni and the Commission of the European Communities
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 3 May 2003 by Arnaldo Lucaccioni, rep-
resented by Mauro Cimino, with an address for service in
Fermo (AP) (Italy).

The appellant claims that the Court should:

1.

2.

uphold the appeal and, consequently, the application at
first instance;

order compensation for biological and non-material
damage caused by the defendant between 1967 and
1990, under the ordinary law, the Charter of Fundament
Rights of the European Union and the European Conven-
tion on Human Rights,
(or under)
Article 73 of the Staff Regulations, as a result of the
inexcusable fault of the institution, which thus incurs
liability, inasmuch as it:

irrespective of

— infringed the appellant’s human dignity,

— infringed the appellant’s right to privacy,

— caused continuous and culpable bodily harm to the
appellant, in that it obliged him to work, giving
untrue reassurances, in an environment contamin-
ated by asbestos, knowing full well that asbestos is
harmful even for persons not at risk,

— deliberately attempted to harm the appellant, at the
risk of killing him, which is mentioned only to
support the allegation of harm

— deliberately tortured the appellant over many years

(totalling

— deliberately attempted against the appellant’s safety
at work, by seriously neglecting safety, assessed at
EUR 3 500 000 (ITL 7 000 000 000), by analogy
with the amounts ordered in respect of each of the
victims
or
some
ITL 1 000 000 000) in the judgment in Case 4840/
96 of 5 July 1996 delivered by the Pretura Circondar-
iale di Torino (District Magistrate’s Court, Turin) and
the compensation ordered for each of the victims of
the
namely
‘Cermis’
ITL 4 000 000 000.

500 000

disaster,

cable

EUR

car

3.

order the defendant to pay the costs incurred at first
instance and as a result of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1.
The Court of First Instance found that the applicant had
already submitted on 15 May 1994 a request relating to non-
material damage suffered prior to the onset of the occupational
disease. That request was rejected by the appointing authority
by decision of 22 September 1994, against which the applicant
brought a complaint on 15 December 1994, in which he no
longer mentioned the alleged damage,
in particular non-
material damage, suffered prior to the onset of the occupational
disease; neither did he challenge before the Court of First
Instance (Case T-165/95) the rejection of the complaint by
the Commission refusing to acknowledge entitlement
to
compensation for non-material damage suffered prior to the
onset of the occupational disease. Essentially, the applicant
failed to bring an action within the time-limit for doing so
against the decision of the Commission of 22 September 1994
refusing to pay compensation for the damage.

According to the appellant, the reasoning of the Court of First
Instance is not satisfactory in that it may not be stated with
certainty that the request of 15 May 1994 included a request
for compensation for non-material damage suffered prior to
the onset of the occupational disease. That interpretation is
arguable, since what is involved is a letter making a claim and
a generic request for compensation following the onset of the
illness.

2.
The appellant also disputes that the fact that the Court
of First Instance declared inadmissible the request for compen-
sation for biological damage on the ground that a request
seeking compensation for damage must contain information
to make it possible to identify the conduct of the institution
about which the appellant is complaining and the reasons for
which he takes the view that there is a causal link between the
conduct and the damage he alleges to have suffered. According
to the appellant, the damage to his health caused by exposure