Case T-256/03: Action brought on 14 July 2003 by Bundesverbandes der Nahrungsmittel- und Speiseresteverwerter e.V. and Josef Kloh against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-09-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), animal nutrition, animal product, derogation from EU law, health legislation, waste recycling

6.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 213/41

European Communities on 8 July 2003 by José Manuel López
Cejudo, residing in Brasilia (Brazil), represented by Georges
Vandersanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the appointing authority of 12 June
2002 concerning the allocation of housing to the appli-
cant and annul the decision of the appointing authority
contained in the applicant’s salary slip for July 2002
relating to the application of the allowance for living
conditions referred to in Article 10 of Annex X to the
Staff Regulations;

— annul, so far as may be necessary,

the decision of
28 March 2003 rejecting the applicant’s complaint lodged
on 5 September 2002;

— order the defendant to pay default interest running from
July 2000 on the difference between the amount received
by the applicant as allowance for living conditions and
the amount which he ought to have received, having
regard to his four dependent children, until payment in
full, the rate of default interest applied having to be
calculated on the basis of the rate set by the European
Central Bank for principal refinancing operations appli-
cable during the period in question, increased by two
points;

— order the defendant to pay one euro as a token in

reparation of non-material damage;

In support of his action the applicant alleges infringements of
Annex X to the Staff Regulations and breach of the principle
of equal treatment and of the principle patere legem quam ipse
fecit. As regards the decision concerning his allowance for
living conditions, the applicant also alleges unjust enrichment
on the part of the Communities and breach of the duty to state
reasons and breaches of the principles of lawfulness and sound
administration.

(1) Judgment of 12 November 2002 in Case T-271/01 José Manuel
López Cejudo v Commission of
the European Communities
[2002] ECR SC II-1109, communicated in OJ No C 19 of
25 January 2003, p. 33.

Action brought on 14 July 2003 by Bundesverbandes der
Nahrungsmittel- und Speiseresteverwerter e.V. and Josef
Kloh against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties

(Case T-256/03)

(2003/C 213/80)

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

(Language of the Case: German)

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a Commission official posted to the Brasilia
delegation, has four children now living with their mother, the
applicant’s ex-wife. None the less, the applicant contributes to
the children’s actual maintenance, as has already been recog-
nised by the Court of First Instance in other proceedings
brought by the applicant (1). The present dispute concerns two
the Commission, one refusing the applicant
decisions of
authorisation for housing including five bedrooms in order to
accommodate his four children, on the ground that they live
with their mother in Europe ,and the other, communicated to
the applicant by means of his salary slip for July 2002 taking
into account, for the purpose of defining the allowance for
living conditions (Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regu-
lations), of two children only instead of four.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 July 2003 by Bundesverbandes
der Nahrungsmittel- und Speiseresteverwerter e.V., Bochum
(Germany) and Josef Kloh, Eichenried (Germany), represented
by R. Steiling and S. Wienhues, lawyers.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul Articles 1 and 6 of the Commission Decision of
12 May 2003 (2003/328/EC) in so far as, as derogations
regarding category 3 catering waste in feed for pigs and
the intra-species recycling ban on the feeding of swill to
pigs, they apply until 31 October 2006 at the latest;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

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.