Case T-203/03: Action brought on 10 June 2003 by Lars Bo Rasmussen against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-08-23
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), administrative sanction, regulations for civil servants

C 200/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.8.2003

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant
is an official at the Commission. He worked
from 1992 to 2000 in Brussels. In 2000 he was transferred to
Luxembourg and then on 1 September 2001 he was trans-
ferred back to Brussels, where he moved back into the house
in which he had previously lived.

The applicant alleges infringement of Article 5(1) of Annex VII
to the Staff Regulations. In his view, he and his family did in
fact move their family residence to his place of service in
Luxembourg. His transfer back to Brussels cannot therefore be
regarded as a return to his family residence.

is justified only if

the Staff
The applicant submits that, under Article 85 of
the
Regulations, recovery of a payment
recipient was aware that
there was no due reason for the
payment or if the fact of the overpayment was patently such
that he could not have been unaware of it. In the applicant's
the payment was
opinion, he was entitled to assume that
justified as the Commission,
the facts,
had decided to grant the installation allowance.

in full knowledge of

treatment of staff members.

Lastly, the applicant alleges infringement of the principle of
equal
Installation allowance is
payable to a staff member not entitled to the household
allowance but not to a staff member entitled to the household
allowance whose family have not yet settled at
that staff
member's place of service.

Action brought on 6 June 2003 by Annelies Keyman
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-200/03)

(2003/C 200/47)

(Language of the Case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 6 June 2003 by Annelies Keyman,
resident in Overijse, Belgium, represented by Carlos Mourato,
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul

the appointing authority's decision of 10 March

2003 to dismiss her;

The applicant in this case contests the appointing authority's
decision to dismiss her for inadequate performance.

In support of her claims, she pleads breach of Article 51 of
the Staff Regulations since she could not in the circumstances
have been found to be in any way incompetent, breach of the
duty to have regard to the welfare of officials, misuse of
powers, breach of the right to an inter partes hearing at the
time of the administrative inquiry, and disregard of the obliga-
tion to state reasons and of the principles of proportionality
and good administration.

Finally, the applicant pleads that the principle of equal treat-
ment has been infringed since similar cases have been treated
differently.

Action brought on 10 June 2003 by Lars Bo Rasmussen
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-203/03)

(2003/C 200/48)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 10 June 2003 by Lars Bo
Rasmussen, residing in Hellerup (Denmark),
represented by
Gilles Bounéou, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Decision No 34988 of 1 July 2000;

— annul

the decision of 21 January 2003 rejecting the

complaint;

— order the defendant to repay the sums wrongfully recov-
ered on the basis of Article 85 of the Staff Regulations
together with interest for late payment;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant 10 000 EUR in
damages or any other amount, even greater,
the
Court may decide is equitable in compensation for the
non-material damage sustained;

that

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

— order the defendant to pay the costs, expenses and fees.

23.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/27

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant was an official at
the Commission. By the
decision challenged the Commission reprimanded the applicant
following alleged false statements made by the him in connec-
tion with his missions and leave.

The applicant pleads, first, infringement of Commission Regu-
lation No 1 and Article 13 of the EC Treaty. He states that the
defendant continued to use French in its letters to him in spite
of his request
to use Danish or English. That constitutes,
according to the applicant, language discrimination.

Secondly, the applicant pleads breach of medical confidentiality
to
in so far as the defendant consulted its medical staff
ascertain whether the applicant was fit to attend the hearing.
That opinion can be based, according to the applicant, only on
his medical history and his file and therefore constitutes a
breach of professional secrecy.

Thirdly, the applicant pleads irregularities in the procedure in
so far as the complaints were not clearly formulated in the
minutes recording the opening of the disciplinary proceedings.
The applicant also pleads an infringement of rules of law, in
particular of Article 71 and Annex VII of the Staff Regulations.

In support of

lished for the sale outside the United States of spare parts for
its construction equipment infringed Articles 81 and 82 EC.
The Commission rejected that complaint by its contested
decision.
its action, the applicant claims that
the defendant made manifest errors of fact, as well as errors in
in finding that
the interpretation and application of the law,
the application to the applicant of the system of selling spare
parts for use outside the United States does not constitute an
agreement within the meaning of Article 81 EC and by not
applying Article 82 EC although Caterpillar holds a dominant
position in the relevant market. The applicant also puts
forward alleged infringements of procedural rules and of the
complainant's rights in regard to the allegedly excessive length
of the investigation of the complaint lodged by the applicant,
the alleged failure to give reasons for the contested decision,
the alleged lack of diligence and impartiality of the defendant
in the examination of the complaint, as well as the alleged
infringement of Article 6 of Regulation 2842/1998/EC (1)
in
that new matters appear for the first time in the contested
decision without the applicant being able to submit its obser-
vations with regard thereto.

(1) OJ 1998 L 354 p. 18.

Action brought on 10 June 2003 by Haladjian Frères
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-204/03)

(2003/C 200/49)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 10 June 2003 by Haladjian Frères,
established in Sorgues (France), represented by Nicole Coutrelis,
lawyer, which an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul

the Commission's decision of 1 April 2003

rejecting its complaint against Caterpillar;

— so far as necessary, undertake all measures of inquiry to
the documents

the Commission to produce all
order
relevant to determination of the dispute;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Action brought on 13 June 2003 by Faber Chimica S.r.l.
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
against

Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-211/03)

(2003/C 200/50)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
(Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Market
the European Communities on
Court of First
Instance of
represented by
13 June 2003 by Faber Chimica S.r.l.,
P. Tartuferi and M. Andreano. Industrias Químicas Naber S.A.
was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of
Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision;

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant lodged a complaint with the Commission against
the Caterpillar Corporation, claiming that the system it estab-

— order OHIM and also Industrias Químicas Naber S.A., in
the event that it should intervene, to pay the costs of the
present proceedings together with the costs of the admin-
istrative proceedings before OHIM.