Case T-405/03: Action brought on 12 December 2003 by Jose Maria Sison against the Council of the European Union
Date: 2004-02-07
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of the European Union, action for annulment (EU), restriction of liberty, terrorism

7.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/17

Action brought on 11 December 2003 by Georgios
Katalagarianakis against the Commission of the European
Communities

Action brought on 12 December 2003 by Jose Maria
Sison against the Council of the European Union

(Case T-402/03)

(2004/C 35/27)

(Language of the case: French)

(Case T-405/03)

(2004/C 35/28)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 11 December 2003 by Georgios
Katalagarianakis, residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented by
Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne
Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision inasmuch as it fixes the
classification at recruitment of the applicant at the first
step of Grade A 6, reviews and fixes 1 April 2000 as the
date for his classification in Grade A 5 and restricts the
pecuniary effects of its decision to 5 October 1995;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Following the judgments of the Court of Justice in Cases
C-389/98 P and C-459/98 P, the Commission reconsidered,
pursuant to Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations, the classifi-
cation of officials who had appealed in terms of Article 91 of
the Staff Regulations. Following that procedure, the Com-
mission took the contested decision concerning the applicant.

applicant

alleges, next,

In support of his application, the applicant alleges, first of all,
infringement of Article 62 of the Staff Regulations inasmuch
as the remuneration carried by that grade is payable by the
mere fact of appointment and that that right may not be
waived. The
infringement of
Article 233(1) of the EC Treaty in that the Commission did not
take all the necessary measures to implement the judgments of
the Court of Justice of 11 January 2001 in C-389/98 P and
C-459/98 P. The applicant claims,
the
defendant infringed Article 32(2) of the Staff Regulations and
is in breach of the principle of equal treatment. Finally, the
applicant alleges infringement of Article 5(3) and Article 45 of
the Staff Regulations and breach of the principle that officials
should have reasonable career prospects.

furthermore,

that

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 12 December 2003 by Jose Maria Sison,
Utrecht, (Netherlands), represented by J. Fermon, A. Comte,
H. Schultz and D. Gurses, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— join the present case to the joined cases T-110/03 and

T-150/03

— annul, on the bases of Article 230 EC, Council Decision
of 2 October 2003 (36/C/02/03): Reply adopted by
the council on 2 October 2003 to the confirmatory
application by Mr Jan Fermon (2/03) made to the Council
by telefax on 5 Septemer 2003 registered by the General
Secretariat of the Council on 8 September 2003, pursuant
to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, for
access to documents

— order the defendant to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case, who is also the applicant in
Cases T-47/03 (1), T-110/03 (2) and T-150/03 (3) Sison/Council
of the European Union, pursues the annulment of the defend-
ants Decision not to allow him access to all documents
that were the basis of the Council Decision 2003/480/EC,
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 2002/974/CE (4).

The grounds and main arguments are similar to those submit-
ted in the abovementioned Cases, T-110/03 and T-150/03.

(1) OJ C 101, 26.4.2003, p. 41.
(2) OJ C 146, 21.6.2003, p. 39.
(3) OJ C 213, 6.9.2003, p. 36.
(4) OJ L 160, 28.6.2003, p. 81.