Case T-284/03: Action brought on 5 August 2003 by Rosalinda Aycinena against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-10-18
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), competition (EU), recruitment

18.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/17

In support of her application, she relies inter alia on the
following pleas:

Pleas in law and main arguments

— failure to have regard to the purpose of optional observa-
tions in so far as the fact that she was being ‘encouraged
to resume tasks of coordination and distribution of work
in the Pool’ is in no way a justification of the assessment
of ‘very good’ under the headings concerned;

— inconsistency in the marks;

— failure to have regard to the observations of the Reports

Committee;

— that she was the victim of harassment at her workplace;

— that she had amply and undeniably demonstrated a
capacity for mobility and versatility. It would therefore
be in keeping with the Staff Regulations for that merit to
be specifically referred to in the staff report at issue.

The applicant submitted his candidature for a vacant post as
counsellor at the European Anti-Fraud Office. The applicant's
candidature for the post was rejected.

In support of his action, the application claims that there has
been a breach of Article 7(1) of the Staff Regulations, an abuse
of power and of procedure, a manifest error of assessment, a
breach of essential procedural requirements in drawing up the
vacancy notice, a breach of the principle of institutional impar-
tiality and of the principle that an institution must have regard
to the welfare of its officials, a breach of Part 1, Point 2 of the
Commission's Decision of 21 December 2000, a breach of
the rights of the defence, in particular the right to be heard,
of the principle of equality of arms, of the principle of equality,
of the principle that an institution must have regard to the
welfare of its officials, of the principle that officials should
have reasonable career prospects and of the principle that
a decision must contain a statement of reasons. Last, the
applicant claims that the Director General of OLAF was not
competent
the
complaint and to reject it.

to make a determination in respect of

Action brought on 8 August 2003 by Paul Ceuninck
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-282/03)

(2003/C 251/32)

(Language of the case: French)

the Commission of

An action against
the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 8 August 2003 by Paul
Ceuninck, residing in Hertsberge (Belgium), represented by
G. Vandersanden and A. Finchelstein, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the entire selection procedure following notice of

vacant post COM/051/02 and annul that notice;

— annul the decision to appoint another person taken by
the appointing authority on 13 September 2002 and also,
consequently, the decision rejecting the applicant's candi-
dature for that post;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Action brought on 5 August 2003 by Rosalinda Aycinena
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-284/03)

(2003/C 251/33)

(Language of the case: French)

the Commission of

the European
An action against
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 5 August 2003 by Rosalinda
Aycinena,
represented by Sébastien
Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal,
lawyers.

residing in Brussels,

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of 26 March 2003 revising the appli-
cant's classification on recruitment classifying her at the
first step of Grade LA 6;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of her claims, the applicant alleges breach of the
obligation to provide reasons for decisions, manifest error of
assessment, breach of the principle that officials should have
the Staff
reasonable

(Article 5(3) of

career prospects

C 251/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.10.2003

Regulations) and breach of the principle of equality of treat-
ment and non-discrimination.

Action brought on 18 August 2003 by Agraz SA and
110 others against the Commission of the European
Communities

(Case T-285/03)

(2003/C 251/34)

(Language of the case: French)

the Commission of

the European
An action against
Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 18 August 2003 by the
company Agraz SA and 110 other companies, represented
by J.-L. da Cruz Vilaça, R. Oliveira, M.-J. Melícias and
D. Choussy, laywers.

for

the marketing

year 2000/2001,

the
Specifically,
Commission took as its basis for calculating production aid
the export prices of tomatoes from the United States, Israel
and Turkey. It follows that the defendant did not take into
account the export prices of China, although in 1999 it was
the world's second largest producer of tomatoes. That basis for
calculation significantly reduced production aid.

their claims,

In support of
the
conditions in the Bergadem case-law are fulfilled in the present
case.

the applicants argue that

that

The applicants claim that that omission infringes the relevant
basic regulation (2),
the regulation confers rights on
individuals and that the powers of the Commission when
Regulation No 1519/2000 was adopted were extremely lim-
ited, consisting merely in identifying the reference countries
for the purposes of calculating the amount of the aid.

Finally,
the Commission infringed the principles of good
administration and legitimate expectations by failing to make
the effort needed to learn the Chinese prices and by refusing,
once it was notified of those prices, to amend the regulation.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

(1) OJ L 174 of 13.7.2000, p. 29.
(2) OJ L 297 of 21.11.1996, p. 29.

— order the defendant to pay each applicant company the
balance of the production aid together with interest at a
rate fixed by the Court of First Instance as from 12 July
2000 (or, in the alternative, as from 13 July 2000 or,
further in the alternative, as from 16 July 2000) and until
the actual day of payment;

Action brought on 15 August 2003 by The Gillette
Company against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

— order the Commission to pay the costs, including those

incurred by the applicants.

(Case T-286/03)

(2003/C 251/35)

Pleas in law and main arguments

(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2) of
the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was
submitted: German)

The present application seeks recognition of the extra-contrac-
tual liability of the Community arising from the damage alleg-
edly suffered by the applicants as the result of the method used
to calculate the amount of production aid for processed
tomato products for the marketing year 2000/2001 under
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1519/2000 of 12 July
2000 setting for the 2000/01 marketing year the minimum
price and the amount of production aid for processed tomato
products (1).

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
the European Communities on
Court of First Instance of
15 August 2003 by The Gillette Company, Boston (USA),
represented by L. Kouker,
lawyer. Wilkinson Sword GmbH,
Solingen (Germany), was also a party to the proceedings
before the Board of Appeal.