Action brought on 10 February 2004 by Qualcomm Wireless Business Solutions Europe B.V., against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-04-17
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), commercial vehicle, satellite communications, toll

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

C 94/52

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.4.2004

In support of its application, the applicant submits that when
finding that the commitments would be sufficient to prevent
Toll Collect's on-board-unit from becoming the dominant plat-
form for the provision of telematics services, the Commission
committed a manifest error of appraisal, wrongly established
the facts, and contradicted its own competitive assessment.
According to the applicant, the commitments fail to remedy
the competition concerns
identified by the Commission,
namely that Toll Collect's on-board-unit, which allows the
provision of all core telematics services,
is provided free of
charge and that truck operators will not pay for alternative
systems if they can obtain telematics services through Toll
Collect's on-board-unit. The applicant furthermore claims that
the contested decision is not supported by sufficient reasoning.

(1) 2003/792/EC: Commission Decision of 30 April 2003
declaring a concentration to be compatible with the
common market and the EEA Agreement
(Case COMP/
M.2903 - DaimlerChrysler/Deutsche Telekom/JV) (Text with
EEA relevance.) (notified under document number C(2003)
1409) (OJ L 300, p. 62)

Action brought on 12 February 2004 by Faraj Hassan
the European Union and the
against

the Council of
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-49/04)

(2004/C 94/140)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Council of the European Union and the
Commission of the European Communities was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 12
February 2004 by Faraj Hassan, London, United Kingdom,
represented by Mr E.Grieves, Barrister and Mr H. Miller Soli-
citor.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Council Regulation (EC) No. 881/2002 of 27 May
2002, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No.
2049/2003 20 November 2003 and/or Commission Regu-
lation (EC) No. 2049/2003 in its entirety and/or in respect
of the proscription of the applicant;

— alternatively, declare the aforementioned Regulations inap-
plicable in respect of their applications to the applicant;
and

— Order the Council to pay the costs incurred by the appli-

cant in the present proceedings;

Commission to amend or supplement Annex I on the basis of
determinations made by either the United Nations Security
Council or the Sanctions Committee. In November 2003 the
Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council
listed the applicant as a person to whom freezing of funds and
should apply. By Regulation 2049/2003 (2) Official
assets
Journal L 303, 21/11/2003 P. 0020 - 0021 the Commission
amended Annex I to Regulation 881/2002, adding the appli-
cant's name to it.

The applicant contests these measures invoking breaches of his
fundamental human rights. He submits that the effect of the
contested measures is to annihilate his peaceful enjoyment of
his property and his private and family life, contrary to Article
8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and of Article
1 of Protocol 1 to the same Convention. The applicant further
submits that the defendants wholly failed to provide him, both
before and after the decision was taken, with a fair hearing or
effective remedy to counter any assertions of fact relied upon.
According to the applicant this constitutes a violation of Arti-
cles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Finally, the applicant claims that the contested measures violate
the principle of proportionality.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 of 27 May 2002
imposing certain specific
restrictive measures directed
against certain persons and entities associated with Usama
bin Laden,
the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and
repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting
the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan,
strengthening the flight ban and extending the freezing of
funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban
of Afghanistan, Official
Journal L 139 , 29/05/2002 P.
0009 - 0022

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2049/2003 of 20
November 2003 amending for the 25th time Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restric-
tive measures directed against certain persons and entities
associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network
and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No
467/2001

Action brought on 6 February 2004 by Emmanuel Micha
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-50/04)

(2004/C 94/141)

— Order the Council to pay damages

(Language of the case: French)

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Regulation 881/2002 (1)1 makes provision for the freezing of
funds and economic resources of persons listed in its Annex I.
the
that
Article 7 paragraph 1 of

regulation authorises

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 6 February 2004 by Emmanuel
Micha, resident
in Roeser (Luxembourg), represented by S.
Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.