Case T-150/03: Action brought on 30 April 2003 by Jose Maria Sison against the Council of the European Union
Date: 2003-09-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of the European Union, action for annulment (EU), administrative sanction, economic sanctions, international sanctions, restriction of liberty, terrorism

C 213/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.9.2003

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE

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

ing in any event the costs of the proceedings.

of 25 June 2003

in Case T-175/03 R: Norbert Schmitt v European Agency
for Reconstruction

Pleas in law and main arguments

(Interim relief — Admissibility)

(2003/C 213/71)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case T-175/03 R: Norbert Schmitt, residing in Koellerbach
(Germany), represented by L. Polanz, lawyer, against European
Agency for Reconstruction (Agent: C. Manolopoulos) —
application for suspension of operation of the decision of the
European Agency for Reconstruction to revoke the applicant’s
contract of employment — the President of the Court of First
Instance has made an order on 25 June 2003, the operative
part of which is as follows:

1.

2.

The application for interim relief is dismissed.

Costs are reserved.

Action brought on 29 April 2003 by Elisabeth Saskia Smit
v Europol

(Case T-143/03)

(2003/C 213/72)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

The applicant has worked for the defendant since 1 July 1999.
On 1 July 2003 her 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 her application the applicant first alleges an
infringement of the duty to provide a statement of reasons.

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.

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 defendant misused its
competence. The applicant states that the Netherlands Minister
for Home Affairs carried out a security check on the applicant
at the defendant’s request. That investigation disclosed nothing
adverse against the applicant. However, according to the
applicant, the mere fact that a security check was carried out
constituted the actual reason for the refusal to extend her
contract.

Action brought on 30 April 2003 by Jose Maria Sison
against the Council of the European Union

An action against Europol was brought before the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities on 29 April 2003
by Elisabeth Saskia Smit, represented by P. de Casparis and
M.F. Baltussen.

(Case T-150/03)

(2003/C 213/73)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(Language of the case: English)

(1)

annul the rejection by Europol on 25 February 2003
of the applicant’s complaint against the decision of
30 September 2002, together with the latter decision;

(2) order Europol to extend the applicant’s contract of
employment until 1 July 2007 or such other date as the
Court may determine;

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 30 April 2003 by Jose Maria Sison, Utrecht,
the Netherlands, represented by Mr J. Fermon, Mr A. Comte,
Mr E. Schultz and Mr D. Gurses, lawyers.

6.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/37

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul, on the basis of Article 230 EC, Council Decision
of 27th February 2003 (06/c/01/03): Answer adopted by
the council on the 27th February 2003 to the confirma-
tory application of M. Jan Fermon sent by fax on the
3rd February 2002 under Article 7(2) of the Regulation
(EC) No 1049/2001, notified to the applicant’s counsel
on 28 February 2003;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case is the same as in cases T-47/
3 Sison/Council and Commission (1) and T-110/03 Sison/
Council (2), pursues the annulment of the defendant’s decision
not to get him access to all the documents which were the
basis of the Council Decision 2002/974/CE (3), repealing the
previous Decision 2002/848/EC (4), by which the applicant
itself and the New People’s Army (NPA) are included in the list
pertinent to Article 2(3), of Regulation 2580/2001 (5).

In support of its conclusions, the applicant submits:

— The infringement of the right of access to documents, as
forseen in Articles 1(2) EU, 6(1) EU, 255 EC and 4(1)(a),
4(6) and 9(3) of Regulation 1049/2001 (6).

— The violation of the principle of sound adminstration, as

well as the duty to state reasons.

— The violation of the general principle of Community Law
enshrined in Article 6 ECHR and especially of the right to
be informed promptly, in an understandable language
and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation.

(5) Council Regulation of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive
measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view
to combatting terrorism (OJ L 344, of 28.12.2001, p. 70).

(6) Regulation of the European Parliement and the Council of 30 May
2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council
and Commisson documents (OJ L 145, of 31.5.2001, p. 43).

Action brought on 15 May 2003 by Eduard Vonier against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-165/03)

(2003/C 213/74)

(Language of the Case: German)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 15 May 2003 by Eduard Vonier,
resident
represented by
W. Schmolke, lawyer.

in Amsterdam (Netherlands),

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul and set aside the decision of the selection board of
30 July 2002 not to include him on the list of successful
candidates in Competition COM/A/601 for the field of
external relations;

— order the Commission to pay EUR 10 000 in compen-
sation for the non-material damage caused to the him;

— order the Commission to pay the costs, pursuant to
Article 87(3) of the Rules of Procedure if appropriate.

( 1) OJ C 101, of 26.4.2003, p. 41.
( 2) Not published in the OJ yet.
( 3) Council Decision of 12 December 2002 implementing Article 2(3)
of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures
directed against certain persons and entities with a view to
combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/848/EC (OJ
L 337, of 13.12.2002, p. 85).

( 4) Council Decision of 28 October 2002 implementing Article 2(3)
of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures
directed against certain persons and entities with a view to
combatting terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/460/EC (OJ
L 295, of 30.10.2002, p. 12).

Pleas in law and main arguments

Competition COM/A/601 (1) was held in order to recruit
administrators in the fields of external relations and adminis-
tration of aid to non-member countries. The applicant, an
Austrian national, submitted an application for the field of
foreign relations. He was successful in the written procedure
and was admitted to the oral examination. By the contested
informed that he could not be
decision he was, however,