Case T-100/04: Actionbrought on 11 March 2004 by Massimo Giannini againstCommission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-04-30
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), competition (EU), equal treatment, servant (EU)

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/83

Action brought on 15 March 2004 by S.I.M.SA srl and
Others against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-98/04)

(2004/C 106/162)

(Language of the case: Italian)

reassess the compatibility with the Treaty of a scheme
which had already been granted authorisation and because
it contravened legal situations which were in the nature of
real and genuine rights, regarding the creation of which the
Commission had not raised any objection whatsoever.

Lastly, the applicants allege infringement of the principle of
equal treatment and of their rights of defence.

An action against Commission of the European Communities
was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 15 March 2004 by S.I.M.SA srl and Others,
represented by Michele Arcangelo Calabrese, lawyer.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Action brought on 11 March 2004 by Massimo Giannini
against Commission of the European Communities

— Annul that part of the contested decision which by implica-
tion did not allow them to reformulate, in the first proce-
dure organised on the basis of State aid scheme No N 715/
99, the applications submitted in the penultimate procedure
organised on the basis of the previous scheme;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present action, the annulment is sought of the decision
dated 12 July 2000 by which the Commission authorised,
without raising objections, State aid scheme No N 715/99,
only as regards the part in which the applicants are, by implica-
tion, not allowed to reformulate the applications submitted in
the third procedure organised under the previous scheme.

In support of their claims, the applicants make the following
allegations:

— infringement of essential procedural requirements, deriving,
first, from the failure to open a formal inquiry procedure
and, second, breach of the obligation to state the reasons
on which measures are based, as laid down by Article 253
EC. Further breaches of essential procedural requirements
are alleged to derive from infringements of Articles 9, 18
and 19 of Regulation (EC) No 659/99;

in that

— manifest error of assessment,

the Commission
concluded that the non-observance of the expiry date of the
authorisation of
the
present purposes, should have been considered still to be in
existence) had the effect of cancelling any rights to reformu-
late applications which had been legitimately acquired
whilst it was in force.

scheme (which,

the previous

for

— breach of

the principle of

legitimate
expectations and of legal certainty and certainty as regards
legal situations, in so far as the Commission purported to

the protection of

(Case T-100/04)

(2004/C 106/163)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 11 March 2004 by Massimo Gian-
nini, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden
and Laure Levi, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the selection board in Competition
COM/A/9/01 not to include his name on the competition
reserve list;

— make an order awarding damages for the material damage
suffered, assessed as the difference between the unemploy-
ment benefit received after the end of the contract as a
temporary member of staff and the salary of an official in
Grade A7, step 4 and, secondly, after the period of unem-
ployment, assessed as the amount of the remuneration of
an official in Grade 7, step 5;

— make an order awarding damages for the non-material

damage suffered, assessed at EUR 1;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The subject matter of this application concerns the exclusion of
the applicant's name from the reserve list resulting from
Competition COM/A/9/01 with a view to constituting a reserve
list for the recruitment of administrators (A7/A6) in the fields
of economics and statistics.

C 106/84

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.4.2004

In support of his claims, the applicant alleges, first, infringe-
ment of Articles 4, 27, 29, 30 and 31 of and Annex III to the
Staff Regulations, disregard for the interests of the service,
breach of the competition notice and of the duty to have
regard for the welfare of officials and infringement of Article 1
of Decision 2002/621/EC of the Secretaries General of the
Community Institutions inasmuch as two of
the successful
candidates whose names appear on the reserve list and who are
officials are already in Grade A7/A6 and thus occupy posts as
economists in that career bracket.

He further alleges:

— breach of the principle of non-discrimination, in particular
inasmuch as the selection board did not apply assessment
criteria consistently, so that the applicant did not have the
same conditions applied to him as were applied to the
other candidates;

— manifest error of assessment in the present case;

— disregard for the principle of sound administration and
infringement of Article 30 of the Staff Regulations and
Article 3 of the Annex thereto, inasmuch as the board were
not qualified to assess the tests objectively.

The applicant also alleges irregularity in the conduct of the
procedure, misuse of powers and lack of powers and breach of
the principle of non-retrospectivity.

Action brought on 15 March 2004 by Carlos Martinez-
Mongay against Commission of the European Commu-
nities

(Case T-101/04)

(2004/C 106/164)

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied
upon in Case T-402/03 Katalagarianakis v Commission (OJ 2004
C 35, p. 17).

Action brought on 8 March 2004 by David Cornwell
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-102/04)

(2004/C 106/165)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 8 March 2004 by David Cornwell,
represented by Sébastien
residing in Kraainem (Belgium),
Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal,
avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the contested decision in so far as it revises and fixes
his classification at Grade A4, step 4, on 1 August 2000
and at Grade A4, step 5, on 16 March 2003, and in so far
as the financial effects of that decision are limited to the
date of 5 October 1995;

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

(Language of the case: French)

Pleas in law and main arguments:

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 15 March 2004 by Carlos Martinez-
Mongay, residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi,
Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers.

The applicant is challenging the decision of 14 April 2003 by
the appointing authority revising and fixing his recruitment
classification at Grade A5, step 3, on 1 May 1992, revising and
fixing his subsequent classification at Grade A4, step 4, on 1
August 2000, and at Grade A4, step 5, on 16 March 2003,
and limiting the financial effects thereof to 5 October 1995.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision in so far as it sets the classifi-
cation on recruitment of the applicant at the second step in
Grade 6 and reviews and sets at 1 April 2000 his classifica-
tion in Grade A5, step 3 and in so far as it limits its
pecuniary effects to 5 October 1995;

The pleas in law and arguments submitted are similar to those
in Case T-402/03 Katalagarianakis v Commission (OJ 2004 C 35,
p. 17).