Case T-355/03: Action brought on 16 October 2003 by Andreas Mausolf against Europol
Date: 2004-01-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European official, Europol, action for annulment (EU), promotion, regulations for civil servants

C 21/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.1.2004

The applicant also pleads infringement of Article 253 EC.
According to the applicant,
the Commission has not
adequately set out the reasons why the transitional rule in
Article 2 of the contested decision must be restricted to
undertakings in respect of which the tax authority had taken a
decision as at 11 July 2001.

(1) 2003/515/EC: Commission Decision of 17 February 2003 on the
State aid implemented by the Netherlands for international
financing activities (OJ 2003 L 180, p. 52).

Action brought on 31 October 2003 by MEDICI GRIMM
KG against the Council of the European Union

(Case T-364/03)

(2004/C 21/77)

(Language of the case: English)

Action brought on 16 October 2003 by Andreas Mausolf
against Europol

(Case T-355/03)

(2004/C 21/76)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

An action against Europol was brought before the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities on 16 October
2003 by Andreas Mausolf, resident in Leiden (Netherlands),
represented by M.F. Baltussen and P. de Casparis.

An action against The Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 31 October 2003 by MEDICI GRIMM KG,
Rodgau Hainhausen, Germany, represented by Dr Robert
MacLean, Solicitor with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order

that, pursuant

to the second paragraph of
Article 288 of the EC Treaty, the Council of Ministers of
the European Union is liable for the damage caused to
the Applicant and order the Council to pay damages to
the Applicant for the sum of 89 286 EUR in interest and
the sum of 81 079 EUR in legal costs of the administrative
procedure, or whatever sums the Court decides appro-
priate;

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the Council to pay the legal costs and expenses of

the procedure.

1)

2)

annul the implicit rejection by Europol of the applicant’s
complaint challenging the decision of 2 January 2003
and also to annul the decision of 2 January 2003;

order Europol to pay compensation to Andreas Mausolf,
including in any event the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the decision not to award him an extra
step with effect from 1 July 2002.

The applicant submits that the contested decision contains an
inadequate statement of reasons and thereby conflicts with the
general principle that decisions must state the reasons on
which they are based.

The applicant is a company dealing in leather handbags. In
the course of its business it regularly imported handbags
manufactured by a company based in the People’s Republic of
China. Council Regulation EC 1567/971 (1) imposed a defini-
tive anti-dumping duty on imports of
leather handbags
originating in that country. That Regulation was later amended
by Council Regulation (EC) No 2380/98 of 3 November
1998 (2) which imposed a specific anti-dumping duty rate of
0 % on the handbags imported by the applicant.

However, this provision was not given retroactive effect and
consequently duties paid by the applicant until then were not
refunded.