Removal from the register of Case T-280/93
Date: 2003-09-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), agricultural quota, milk product

C 213/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.9.2003

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants in Case T-391/02 (1) brought an action for
annulment of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European
Parliament and of the Council (2) and claimed that the Court
should annul the Regulation in so far as derogations to the
prohibition on the use of catering waste in feed under
Article 22 are permitted for no more than four years from
1 November 2002. The contested decision adopts transitional
measures in accordance with Article 32(2) of the Regulation.

The applicant has worked for the defendant since 1 July 1999.
On 1 July 2003 his current contract expires. However, the
applicant’s request for a renewal of her contract was rejected
by the defendant. The applicant is challenging that decision.

In support of his application the applicant first alleges an
infringement of the duty to provide a statement of reasons.

The applicants claim that the time-limit on the transitional
measures is unlawful. It is not necessary for the purpose of
achieving the intended objective. For the rest, the applicants
refer to the pleas and arguments put forward in Case T-391/
02.

The applicant goes on to assert that the defendant exceeded its
policy-making powers. The defendant drew up basic principles,
policy rules and a stage plan to ensure that contracts are
extended in a clear and transparent manner. According to the
applicant the defendant exceeded its margin of discretion in
the application of those rules.

( 1) OJ 1992 C 44, p. 42.
( 2) Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules
concerning animal by-products not intended for human consump-
tion (OJ 2002 L 273, p. 1).

Finally, the applicant submits that there was an infringement
of the duty of care, as well as an infringement of the principle
of equal treatment.

Lastly, the applicant asserts that the fact that he is a member
of Europol’s supervisory body and a union member are the
reasons why his contract is not being extended. The applicant
is of
the view that employees who are members of a
co-determination body must enjoy extra protection against
dismissal and that in such cases it is for the employer to show
that there is no connection between the dismissal and the
activities of the employee.

Removal from the register of Case T-280/93 (1)

(2003/C 213/82)

(Language of the Case: English)

By order of 12 June 2003 the President of the First Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
ordered the removal from the register of Case T-280/93: Brian
the European Union and
Stephen Garrett v Council of
Commission of the European Communities.

(1) OJ C 302 of 19.11.1992.

Action brought on 11 July 2003 by Andreas Mausolf v
Europol

(Case T-258/03)

(2003/C 213/81)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

An action against Europol was brought before the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities on 11 July 2003
by Andreas Mausolf, residing in Leiden (Netherlands) and
represented by M.F. Baltussen and P. Casparis.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1)

annul the (partial) rejection by Europol on 14 April 2003
of the applicant’s complaint against the decision of
30 September 2002, together with the latter decision;

(2) order Europol to pay the applicant compensation includ-

ing in any event the costs of the proceedings.