Case T-139/04: Action brought on 8 April 2004 by Kelvin William Stephens against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-06-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), administrator, professional career, promotion, staff assessment

26.6.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/7

Action brought on 2 April 2004 by André Bonnet against
Court of Justice of the European Communities

failure to state reasons and a breach of
defence.

the rights of

the

(Case T-132/04)

(2004/C 168/12)

(Language of the case: French)

The applicant also alleges a breach of acquired rights, of the
principle of non-retroactivity and of
legal
certainty and also a breach of the principle of respect for
private life and of the principle of political neutrality. Last, the
applicant claims that there has been a misuse of powers.

the principle of

An action against the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 2 April 2004 by André Bonnet,
residing in Saint Pierre de Vassols (France), represented by
Hervé de Lepinau,
lawyer, with an address for service in
Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decisions of 11 February 2004 and 4 March
2004, and also the decision appointing another person to
the post which should have been filled by the applicant;

— Hold declare that the recruitment of 4 February 2004 is to

take full effect as from 1 March 2004;

— Order the Court of Justice of the European Communities to
pay the applicant
the sum of EUR 100,000 for non-
pecuniary harm and also the sum of EUR 5,000 per month
with effect from 1 March until such time as the applicant
actually takes up his duties;

— In the alternative, should the decision of the Court of First
Instance not make it inevitable that the applicant takes up
his duties, order the Court of Justice to pay the applicant a
total sum of EUR 260,000 plus interest at the statutory
rate as from the date of the present application;

— In any event, order the Court of Justice of the European

Communities to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant applied for the post as lecteur d'arrêts in the
cabinet of the President of the Court of Justice. He claims that
he was chosen following the selection procedure but
that,
following the contested decisions, he was not appointed to the
post.

In support of his action, the applicant claims that the chef de
in connection with the
cabinet was not competent
appointment of a law clerk at the Court. The applicant further
claims that there has been a breach of essential procedural
requirements such as the principle of parallelism of forms, a

to act

Action brought on 8 April 2004 by Kelvin William
the European
Stephens

the Commission of

against

Communities

(Case T-139/04)

(2004/C 168/13)

(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 April 2004 by Kelvin William
Stephens, resident in Brussels, represented by N. Lhoëst, lawyer,
with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the appointing authority of 14 April

2003 inasmuch as it:

— did not classify the applicant in Grade A6, step 3, at the

time of his recruitment;

— did not reconstitute the career in terms of the appli-
cant's grade by bringing forward the date of his promo-
tions to Grades A5 and A4;

— limited the date of effect of the reclassification decision
in regard to its pecuniary effects to 5 October 1995;

— annul the decision of the appointing authority of 15 January
2004, served on the applicant on 30 January 2004,
rejecting his complaint R/521/03;

— order the defendant to pay compensation provisionally set
in the amount of EUR 125 000 in the event that, owing to
it is unable to reconstitute the applicant's
impossibility,
career in terms of his grade;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

C 168/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.6.2004

Pleas in law and main arguments

In these proceedings, the applicant, who, on his recruitment in
October 1985, was classified in Grade A7, step 3, challenges
the decision of the appointing authority refusing to revise that
classification, placing him in Grade A6, step 2, and not in
Grade A6, step 3, refusing to reconstitute his career and
limiting the date of effect of the decision on his reclassification
to 5 October 1995.

The pleas relied on by the applicant in support of his claims
are the same as those relied on by the applicant in Case T-125/
04 Rousseaux v Commission.

specifically,
rule and of the right of access to the case-file.

it pleads infringement of the audi alteram partem

The applicant submits further that there has been a breach of
Regulation No 1430/79 (2) on the repayment or remission of
import or export duties, as well as a breach of Article 239 of
Regulation No 2913/92 (3)
the Community
Customs Code, and of Articles 905 to 909 inclusive of Regu-
lation No 2454/93 (4) laying down provisions for the imple-
mentation of Regulation No 2913/92. The applicant also
alleges breach of the obligation under Article 253 EC to state
reasons.

establishing

Action brought on 14 April 2004 by Cargill B.V. against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-142/04)

(2004/C 168/14)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 14 April 2004 by Cargill B.V.,
having its registered office in The Hague (Netherlands), repre-
sented by H.J. Bronkhorst and J.F. van Nouhuys.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

I. annul the decision of 5 January 2004 addressed to it by the

Commission of the European Communities;

II. order the European Commission to pay the costs of the

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant takes issue with the Commission's decision that
remission of import duties was not justified in a particular case.
That decision was adopted following annulment by the Court
of Justice of Commission Decision C/2000/485 final in Case C-
156/00 Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission. (1)

The applicant imported maize into the EC under the inward
processing arrangements. The maize was to be processed into
glucose, which in turn was re-exported. For that purpose the
applicant had the necessary authorisations for the system of
equivalent
in the
contested decision that the exported glucose was not obtained
entirely from maize but also from wheat originating on the EC
market. The Netherlands authorities thereupon recovered the
import duties owing. In the contested decision the Commission
turned down the request for remission of that debt.

compensation. The Commission states

In support of its application the applicant first submits that
there has been a breach of the rights of the defence. More

The Commission, the applicant argues, erred in finding that the
applicant was manifestly negligent in regard to meeting the
conditions governing its authorisation for inward processing.
According to the applicant,
the glucose to be exported,
produced from wheat and maize, had the same characteristics
as glucose obtained solely from maize. The applicant submits
further that both products come under one single CN code. It
claims that the only reproach which may be made against it is
that it exported the glucose in part after expiry of the six-
month period set out in the authorisation.

The applicant concludes by arguing that there has been an
infringement of the principle of proportionality.

(1) Judgment in Case C-156/00 Netherlands v Commission [2003] ECR

I-2527.

(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 on the repay-
ment or remission of import or export duties (OJ 1979 L 175, p.
1).

(3) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 estab-

lishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

(4) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying
down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ
1993 L 253, p. 1).

Action brought on 13 April 2004 by Télévision Française
1 SA against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-144/04)

(2004/C 168/15)

(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 13 April 2004 by Télévision Fran-
çaise 1 SA, established in Boulogne (France), represented by J.-
P. Hordies, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.