Case T-429/03: Action brought on 21 December 2003 by Gregorio Valero Jordana against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-03-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), promotion, staff assessment

C 59/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.3.2004

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Direct the defendant to honour the settlement agreement
reached with the applicant and to pay it a total final sum
in respect of the Grant Agreement of EUR 40 919,65.

— Annul the Commission’s Decision of 20 October 2003
to pay only EUR 257 598,91, despite the existence of the
settlement agreement.

— In the alternative to the first and second pleas above,
should the Court find that no settlement agreement exists,
to order the defendant to pay the applicant the final
amount specified in its Final Report, less amounts already
paid, totalling EUR 47 706,39.

— In the further alternative to the first and second pleas
above, should the Court find that no settlement agreement
exists, annul the Commission’s Decision of 20 October
2003 to pay only EUR 257 598,91 despite the applicant’s
for
contractual
EUR 305 305,30.

claim in

Report

Final

the

approval of this sum, which the applicant duly did. On
20 October 2003, however, the Commission proceeded to
pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 257 598,91 which, as it
claimed in subsequent correspondence, represented the final
amount due under the agreement.

In support of its application the applicant first submits that a
binding settlement agreement was reached in May 2003
between the parties, providing that the amount payable would
be EUR 298 518,65. It therefore asks the Court to enforce that
agreement. In the alternative, if the Court should conclude that
no settlement agreement was reached, the applicant claims
that the Commission was bound to pay the original amount
claimed, i.e. EUR 305 305,30, since it failed to express its
concerns within sixty days of receipt of the application of
payment. The applicant further argues that, in any case, the
Commission’s
only
EUR 257 598,91 should be annulled for failure to state reasons
and for non-respect of the applicant’s right to be heard by the
Commission before the final decision was adopted.

applicant

decision

pay

the

to

— Order the defendant to pay interest on any amounts that
the Court finds remain due or have been paid late in
accordance with the pleas above.

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Action brought on 21 December 2003 by Gregorio
Valero Jordana against the Commission of the European
Communities

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Applicant is an international nonprofit making association
active in the field of new car safety. On 22 August 2001, the
applicant submitted to the Commission an application for a
grant of 25 % funding of a project concerned with the safety
assessment of certain types of vehicles, most notably four
wheel drive vehicles. Thereafter, on 12 October 2001 the
applicant and the Commission concluded a Grant Agreement
the terms of which provided that the applicant would present
to the Commission a final statement of all eligible costs, that
on the basis of an examination of the final settlement the
Commission would pay the balance of the grant to the
applicant and that all sums under the agreement were to be
paid within sixty days unless the Commission, within that
period,
the request was not
admissible . On 10 December 2002 the applicant submitted
an application for payment of the outstanding balance, of the
grant, which it claimed was EUR 305 305,30. On 31 March
2003, i.e. more than sixty days after receipt of the application,
the Commission, not having paid the sum requested, raised
certain queries with the applicant. These led to further
submissions of documents by the applicant and a meeting
between the parties representatives. On 2 May 2003 the
Commission informed the applicant that final payment would
be EUR 298 518,65 and asked the applicant to mark its

informed the applicant

that

(Case T-429/03)

(2004/C 59/45)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 21 December 2003 by Gregorio
Valero Jordana, residing in Uccle (Belgium), represented by
Nicolas Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the appointing authority dated
19 December 2003 confirming the applicant’s initial
classification in Grade A 7;

— In so far as necessary, annul the decision of the appointing
authority of 9 September 2003 rejecting the applicant’s
complaint;

— Order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceed-

ings.

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 59/29

Pleas in law and main arguments

Following the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case
T-17/95 (1), the Commission adopted an amendment of the
rules relating to the criteria applicable to appointment in grade
and classification in scale on recruitment, which entitled
officials to seek a review of their classification on entering the
service. By the contested decision, the Commission confirmed
the applicant’s classification in Grade A 7 on the date of his
recruitment and, accordingly, rejected a request for reclassifi-
cation submitted by the applicant.

In support of his action, the applicant relies on a failure to
state reasons in the contested decision, a manifest error of
assessment and alleged discrimination between the applicant,
whose request for reclassification was rejected, and other
officials who, with less professional experience than the
applicant, were none the less reclassified in the higher grade of
the career bracket.

(1) Judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-
ties of 5 October 1995, published in OJ C 315, 25.11.95, p. 14.

Action brought on 24 December 2003 by Gibtelecom
Limited against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-433/03)

(2004/C 59/46)

(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 24 December 2003 by Gibtelecom
Limited, Gibraltar, represented by Mr M. Llamas, Barrister and
Mr B. O’Connor Solicitor.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the Commission’s decision of 17 October 2003
rejecting the complaint brought by Gibtelecom under
Article 86 EC in conjunction with Article 82 EC;

— order the Commission to pay Gibtelecom’s costs.

Article 82 EC in refusing to conclude a cross-border roaming
(GSM) agreement with the applicant. The applicant
later
converted that complaint into a complaint under Article 86
(EC,
in conjunction with Articles 82 EC, 49 EC and 12
EC, against Spain alleging that Telefonica was acting under
instructions from the Spanish Government which claims
sovereignty over Gibraltar.

In support of its application, the applicant invokes a series of
alleged manifest errors of assessment of the contested decision.
According to the applicant, the Commission erred in consider-
ing that Telefonica is not a public undertaking or that it enjoys
special rights within the meaning of article 86 EC. The
applicant further alleges that Telefonica is in a dominant
position and that there is an appreciable effect on trade and
on competition of the refusal to conclude an agreement with
the applicant. In the context of the same plea the applicant
argues that the Commission’s assessment that consumers in
Gibraltar have access to mobile telecommunications services
in Spain is manifestly unsound and that there is no suitable
alternative to the Commission’s intervention.

to inadequate reasoning and a violation of

The applicant further puts forward a number of procedural
and administrative grounds for annulment referring, in this
context,
the
applicant’s legitimate expectations which allegedly arose as a
result of a letter sent on 7 June 2000 by three members of the
Commission to Spain and the United Kingdom, requesting the
two countries, among other things, to find a solution to the
complaint about roaming. The applicant further submits, in
the context of the same plea, that the Commission has failed
to act impartially and that it has breached the principle
requiring it to act within a reasonable period.

Action brought on 24 December 2003 by Gibtelecom
Limited against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-434/03)

(2004/C 59/47)

(Language of the case: English)

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested decision the Commission rejected a complaint
filed by the applicant on 14 May 1996 alleging that the
Spanish telecommunications operator, Telefonica SA, had
committed a series of abuses of dominant position contrary to

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 24 December 2003 by Gibtelecom
Limited, Gibraltar, represented by Mr M. Llamas Barrister and
Mr B. O’Connor Solicitor.