Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 June 2003 in Joined Cases T-124/01 and T-320/01 Pietro Del Vaglio v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Weighting — Pension — Definition of residence — Burden of proof — United Kingdom)
Date: 2003-08-02
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: United Kingdom, action for annulment (EU), damages, pension scheme, ratio

2.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/33

Plenary session

At its meeting on 2 July 2003, the Court of First Instance
decided pursuant to the second sub-paragraph of Article 32(1)
of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance that
following the designation of an Advocate General
where,
pursuant to Article 17 of the Rules of Procedure, there is an
even number of Judges in the Court of First Instance sitting in
plenary session, the rota established in advance in accordance
with which the President of the Court is to designate the Judge
who will not take part in the judgment of the case shall be in
reverse order to that in which the Judges rank according to
their seniority in office under Article 6 of
the Rules of
Procedure unless the Judge who would thus be designated is
it shall be the judge
In that event,
the Judge-Rapporteur.
ranking immediately above him who shall be designated.

Designation of the Judge replacing the President of the
Court of First Instance as the Judge hearing an application
for interim measures

At its meeting on 2 July 2003, the Court of First Instance
decided in accordance with Article 106 of its Rules of Proce-
dure, as amended on 21 May 2003, that where the President is
absent or prevented from sitting to hear an application for
interim measures, to designate to replace him:

— for the period 1 August to 30 September 2003,

Judge
García-Valdecasas, or if he is absent or prevented from
sitting,
in
that order;

Judge Tiili or Judge Forwood,

Judge Lenaerts,

— for the period 1 October 2003 to 31 August 2004, Judge
García-Valdecasas, or if he is absent or prevented from
sitting, Judge Lenaerts.

Criteria for assigning cases to the Chambers

At its meeting on 2 July 2003, the Court of First Instance
established the following criteria for the assignment of cases to
the Chambers for the period between 1 October 2003 and
31August 2004 pursuant to Article 12 of the Rules of Proce-
dure:

1.

2.

Cases shall be assigned, with effect from the lodging of
the application and without prejudice to any subsequent
application of Articles 14 and 51 of the Rules of Proce-
dure, to Chambers of three Judges...

shall be allocated to the Chambers

in turn,
Cases
following four different orders depending on the date on
which the cases were registered at the Registry:

— for cases concerning implementation of the rules on
competition applicable to undertakings, of the rules
on State aid and the rules on measures to protect
trade;

— for the cases referred to in Article 236 of the EC

Treaty and Article 152 of the EAEC Treaty;

— for the cases concerning intellectual property rights
referred to in Article 130(1) of the Rules of Proce-
dure;

In connection with those various orders, the First Chamber,
presided over by the President of the Court of First Instance,
shall not be taken into consideration at each third turn.

The President of the Court of First Instance may derogate from
that order on the ground that cases are related or with a view
to ensuring an even spread of the workload.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 4 June 2003

in Joined Cases T-124/01 and T-320/01 Pietro Del Vaglio v
Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Officials — Weighting — Pension — Definition of resi-
dence — Burden of proof — United Kingdom)

(2003/C 184/75)

(Language of the case: French)

lawyers, against

the Commission of

In Joined Cases T-124/01 and T-320/01: Pietro Del Vaglio, a
former official of the Commission of the European Commu-
nities, residing in London, represented by G. Vandersanden and
L. Levi,
the European
Communities (Agent: J. Currall) — application for the annul-
ment of
the Commission's decisions of 5 April 2000 and
6 September 2001 refusing to apply the United Kingdom
weighting to the applicant's pension from, respectively, 8 May
1999 and 24 September 2000, and for damages and default
interest on the remainder of the pension owed, the Court of
First
J. Palacio
González, Principal Administrator, gave a judgment on 4 June
2003, in which it:

Instance (single judge: V. Tiili); Registrar:

1.

dismisses the application in Case T-124/01;

2.

annuls the Commission's decision of 6 September 2001 in so
far as the Commission refused to apply the United Kingdom
weighting to the applicant's pension from 1 January 2001;

— for all other cases.

3.

dismisses the remainder of the application in Case T-320/01;

C 184/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.8.2003

4.

the rate set by the European Central Bank for

orders the Commission to pay default interest to the applicant
at
capital
refinancing operations in force during the various phases of the
period concerned, increased by two percentage points per annum,
on the arrears of pension from 1 January 2001 to 31 March
2001; that interest must be calculated from the various dates at
which each payment under the pension scheme should have been
made, up to the date on which the payment was effected;

5.

in Case T-124/01, orders the parties to bear their own costs;

6.

7.

in Case T-320/01, orders the Commission to bear its own costs
and pay half the applicant's costs.

In Case T-320/01, orders the applicant to bear half his own
costs.

(1) OJ C 56 of 2.3.02.

1.

The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

2.

The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 275 29.9.2001.

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 6 May 2003

in Case T-45/02: DOW AgroSciences BV and DOW Agro-
Sciences Ltd v European Parliament and Council of the
European Union (1)

(Decision No 2455/2001/EC — Action for annulment —
Inadmissibility)

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 30 April 2003

(2003/C 184/77)

(Language of the case: English)

in Case T-167/01: Schmitz-Gotha Fahrzeugwerke GmbH v
Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Action for annulment — Locus standi — Commission
decision ordering recovery of State aid — Action brought
by an undertaking buying up assets of a company required
to repay aid — Inadmissibility)

(2003/C 184/76)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case T-167/01: Schmitz-Gotha Fahrzeugwerke GmbH, estab-
lished in Gotha (Germany), represented by M. Matzat, lawyer,
against Commission of
the European Communities (Agents:
V. Kreuschitz and V. Di Buccis) — application for annulment
of Commission Decision 2001/673/EC of 28 March 2001 on
State aid implemented by Germany for EFBE Verwaltungs
GmbH & Co. Management KG (now Lintra Beteiligungsholding
GmbH,
together with Zeitzer Maschinen, Anlagen Geräte
GmbH; LandTechnik Schlüter GmbH; ILKA MAFA Kältetechnik
GmbH; SKL Motoren- und Systembautechnik GmbH; SKL
Spezialapparatebau GmbH; Magdeburger Eisengießerei GmbH;
Saxonia Edelmetalle GmbH and Gothaer Fahrzeugwerk GmbH)
(OJ 2001 L 236, p. 3) — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of V. Tiili, Presi-
dent of the Chamber, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi, A.W.H. Meij and
Jung, Registrar, made an order on
M. Vilaras,
30 April 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:

Judges; H.

In Case T-45/02, DOW AgroSciences BV,
established in
Rotterdam (Netherlands), DOW AgroSciences Ltd, established
in Hitchin (United Kingdom), represented by K. Van Maldegem
and C. Mereu, lawyers, supported by European Crop Protection
Association (ECPA), having its registered office in Brussels
(Belgium), represented by D. Waelbroeck and D. Brinckman,
(Agents: C. Pennera and
lawyers, v European Parliament
the European Union (Agents:
M. Moore) and Council of
M.
supported by
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valero
Jordana and K. Fitch), APPLICATION for partial annulment of
Decision No 2455/2001/EC of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 20 November 2001 establishing the list of
priority substances in the field of water policy and amending
Directive 2000/60/EC (OJ 2001 L 331, p. 1), the President of
the Court of First Instance has made an order on 6 May 2003,
the operative part of which is as follows:

Sims-Robertson and B. Hoff-Nielsen),

1.

The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

2.

3.

The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay the costs
incurred by the Parliament and the Council.

The Commission and the European Crop Protection Association
shall bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.