Case T-241/03: Action brought on 16 June 2003 by Luigi Maruccio against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-08-23
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), breach of domicile, fundamental rights, protection of privacy

23.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 200/31

In support of its action the applicant relies on the following
grounds:

Action brought on 16 June 2003 by Luigi Maruccio
against the Commission of the European Communities

In respect of
decision:

its claims for the annulment of the contested

— alleged infringements of procedural rules, more particu-
larly alleged infringement of the rights of the defence, by
the alleged failure to provide reasons in the
reason of
statement of objections, and alleged infringement of
essential procedural requirements owing to the alleged
insufficiency of
the decision on not
exceeding the ceiling of 10 % of turnover in determining
the amount of the fine;

the reasoning of

— manifest errors of appraisal and law concerning the
existence
agreement
covered by the contested decision and its effect on
competition;

characterisation of

and the

the

(Case T-241/03)

(2003/C 200/56)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 16 June 2003 by Luigi Maruccio,
represented by Prof. Luciano Garofalo.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the note dated 15 October 2002;

— alleged infringement of Regulation 26/62 (1)

in that the
Commission should have granted the derogation provided
for by Article 2 of that regulation;

— order the defendant to pay the applicant damages in the
sum of EUR 100 000, without prejudice to any subse-
quent applicant for further damages.

— alleged infringement of Article 15(2) of Regulation 17/
62 (2) in that the Commission has given no information
on the turnover used in determining the fines and has
not checked whether the amount of the fine was within
the limit of 10 % of turnover.

In respect of its claims for the reduction of the amount of the
fine imposed, the applicant relies on the following grounds:

— alleged infringement of Point 5(b) of the guidelines for
determining the amount of the fine (3), in relation to the
calculation of the amount of the fine;

— alleged manifest errors of appraisal and law concerning
the characterisation of the infringement as ‘very serious’
and of the agreement as ‘secret’, the alleged failure to take
account of extenuating circumstances (lack of effect on
the market, cessation of the infringement as soon as the
Commission intervened, the applicant's exclusively passive
role in the making of the agreement), and the determina-
tion as to the duration of the agreement;

— alleged infringement of Article 15(2) of Regulation 17/62

concerning the fixing of the amount of the fine;

— alleged infringement of the principle that penalties should

not be cumulative.

(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1959-62 (II), p. 20.
(2) OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962 (I), p. 87. Amended on the
last occasion by Regulation (EC) No 1216/1992 (OJ 1999 L 148,
p. 5).

(3) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant
Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 etc., (OJ 1998 C 9, p. 3).

to

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant was employed at the defendant's delegation in
Angola. He challenges the decision contained in a note dated
15 October 2002 informing him, amongst other things, that
in his absence on sick leave in Italy, where he was awaiting
reassignment
it would be necessary for
agents of the delegation to enter the lodgings reserved for his
occupation and to permit others to enter thereon in order to
pack up his personal effects.

to another service,

In support of his claim, the applicants argues that, irrespective
of whether or not the note was put into effect, it contains a
decision which is unlawful for the following reasons:

— Infringement of

trespass to the
the law by reason of
home, unlawful appropriation of property and invasion
of privacy;

— Breach of the principle of ‘neminem laedere’

in that the
note in issue was sent against a background of aggressive
behaviour towards and persecution of the applicant;

— Breach of
officials;

the duty to have regard for the welfare of

— Breach of the principle of force majeure and of the prin-
ciple of reasonableness in that the defendant failed to take
the applicant's state of health into account.

Lastly, the applicant argues breach of the duty to state reasons
and of the principle of the protection of
legitimate expecta-
tions.