Case T-287/03: Action brought on 18 August 2003 by S.I.M. SA. srl against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-10-04
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, State aid, access to information, action for annulment (EU), control of State aid

C 239/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.10.2003

The applicant argues in this connection that, in this case, the
facts of the dispute, which dates back to 1995, are brought
before the Community court for a third time, yet the Com-
mission has still not properly completed what it ought to have
done in 1995, namely to conduct an assessment of whether
ascertained variations from the object, structure and purpose
of the original subsidised project are in conformity.

( 1) ECR I-6831.
( 2) Case T-241/00 ECR II-1251.

Action brought on 8 August 2003 by Lucía Recalde
Langarica against Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-283/03)

(2003/C 239/47)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 8 August 2003 by Lucía Recalde
Langarica, residing in Brussels, represented by D. Ramón
García-Gallardo and M. Dolores Domínguez Pérez, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Decision of 8 May 2003 rejecting the applicant’s
complaint seeking formal and definitive annulment of
the decision withdrawing her entitlement under the
Staff Regulations to the expatriation allowance and
confirmation of her entitlement to that allowance and
also to other related allowances; and

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the decision whereby the
appointing authority rejected the applicant’s complaint seeking
formal and definitive annulment of the decision refusing her
entitlement under the Staff Regulations to the expatriation
allowance and confirmation of her entitlement to that allow-
ance, together with other related allowances, such as, specifi-
cally, the allowance for the costs of installation at her present
place of work.

The applicant states in that regard that the contested decision
replaces another decision which the Court of First Instance
the European Communities annulled by judgment of
of
20 September 2001 (1).

In support of here claims, the applicant puts forward the
following pleas:

— Breach of the rights of defence, given the absence of a

complete file.

in the assessment of

— Manifest error in the assessment of the facts and, in
particular,
the place of main
occupation or habitual residence during the reference
period. In the alternative, the applicant claims that the
Commission ignored the fact that the applicant’s stay in
Brussels never exceeded the reference period and, further
in the alternative, that it did not apply the ‘work done for
another State’ exception in Article 4 of Annex VII to the
Staff Regulations.

(1) Case T-344/99 Recalde Langarica v Commission [2001] ECR-SC

IA-183; II-833).

Action brought on 18 August 2003 by S.I.M. SA. srl
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-287/03)

(2003/C 239/48)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 August 2003 by S.I.M. SA. srl,
represented by M.A. Calabrese.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the Commission’s letter of 30 April 2002 D/52107,
COMP/G1/D(02)400 PI/cpb, of which the applicant has
not had sight, whereby the Commission consulted the
Italian authorities, inviting them to express their assent
or dissent to the release to a party other than the applicant
of the documents of which the applicant has requested
copies;

4.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/27

— annul the Commission’s letter of 3 February 2003 D/
50721, COMP/G1/D(03)142/PI/cpb, of which the appli-
cant has not had sight, whereby the Commission consult-
ed the Italian authorities, asking whether they objected to
the Commission divulging to a party other than the
applicant, in whole or in part, the documents of which
the applicant has requested copies;

— annul the facsimile letter of 10 July 2003, ref. SGB2/IS/
D(2003)330251, whereby the Secretariat-General of the
Commission (i) referred to the two instances of consul-
tation in issue and refused access to the documents
originating from the Italian authorities in the exchange
of letters preceding the adoption of the decision of
the aid scheme
authorisation without objections of

N 715/99, (ii) stated that, after each consultation, the
Italian authorities opposed disclosure and (iii) stated that
the access
the Commission had no power to grant
requested, and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and principal arguments are similar to those
in Case T-139/03 Nuova Agricast v Commission (1).

(1) OJ C 146 of 21.06.03, p. 43.