Action brought on 11 February 2004 by Alex Milbert and seven other applicants against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-04-17
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), professional career, staff assessment

17.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 94/51

In support of her claims, she alleges:

— infringement of Articles 7, 14, 29(1)(a) and 45 of the Staff
Regulations and of the rules for nominating officials to
grades A1 and A2;

— misuse of powers in the present case;

— a manifest
Authority;

error of

assessment by the Appointing

— failure to observe the principles of legality, entitlement to
reasonable career prospects and equal treatment for men
and women.

The applicant emphasises in particular the appropriateness of
her professional profile for the post in question, as described in
the vacancy notice,
in contrast to that of the person finally
appointed, who can invoke only one experience of working in
a cabinet.

powers and a breach of the principle of the protection of legiti-
mate expectations and of the rule patere legem quam ipse fecisti
and also a breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of
officials.

Action brought on 10 February 2004 by Qualcomm Wire-
less Business Solutions Europe B.V., against the Commis-
sion of the European Communities

(Case T-48/04)

(2004/C 94/139)

(Language of the case: English)

Action brought on 11 February 2004 by Alex Milbert and
seven other applicants against Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities

(Case T-47/04)

(2004/C 94/138)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 10 February 2004 by Qualcomm
Wireless Business Solutions Europe B.V., Waalre, The Nether-
lands, represented by Dr G.Berrisch,
lawyer and Mr D. Hull
Solicitor.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(Language of the case: French)

— annul the contested decision;

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 11 February 2004 by Alex Milbert
and seven other applicants, residing in Luxembourg and in
Belgium, represented by Gilles Bounéou and Frédéric Frabetti,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— Annul the evaluation procedure 2001 - 2002 in so far as it

concerns the applicants;

— In the alternative, annul the applicants' career development
report (REC/CDR) for the period 1.7.2001-31.12.2002;

— Make an order as to costs, expenses and fees and order the
Commission of the European Communities to pay them.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action, the applicants plead a breach of Arti-
cles 26 and 43 of the Staff Regulations, of the General Provi-
sions for the implementation of Article 43 of the Staff Regula-
tions, of the Evaluation Guide and of the specific guide for the
staff evaluation procedure 2001 - 2002.

The applicants also claim that there has been a breach of the
principles of non-discrimination, of the prohibition of arbitrary
proceedings and of the obligation to state reasons, a misuse of

— order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceed-

ings.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant supplies throughout Europe a satellite-based
truck fleet management system called EutelTRACS. It seeks the
annulment of the Commission's decision of 30 April 2003 (1).
With the contested decision, the Commission found the acqui-
sition of
joint control by DaimlerChrysler Services and
Deutsche Telekom over a joint venture, Toll Collect GmbH, to
be compatible with the common market and the EEA Agree-
ment.

The applicant states that Toll Collect was formed after a
consortium of DaimlerChrysler Services, Deutsche Telekom
AG, and Compagnie Financière et Industrielle des Autoroutes
S.A. won a contract from the German government for the
establishment and operation of a system for collecting tolls
from heavy goods vehicles using German motorways. The
contested decision did not deal with the toll collection activities
of Toll Collect, but with the question of whether the partners
could offer
through Toll Collect. As
submitted by the applicant, the Commission established that
the partners would obtain a dominant position in the market
for traffic telematics for transport and logistics undertakings,
but concluded that the commitments offered would be suffi-
cient.

telematics

services