Case T-147/04: Action brought on 23 April 2004 by Brian M. Ross against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-06-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), professional career, regulations for civil servants, staff assessment

26.6.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 168/9

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Decision C (2003) 4497 final of the Commission of
the European Communities of 10 December 2003 on State
aid implemented by France for the benefit of ‘France 2’ and
‘France 3’ from 1988 to 1994, insofar as it declares that aid
to be compatible with the common market under Article
86(2) of the Treaty;

— order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Following a complaint made by the applicant, the Commission
decided to initiate a formal investigation procedure pursuant to
Article 88(2) EC into investment subsidies and capital grants
received by the television channels ‘France 2’ and ‘France 3’
from 1988 to 1994. By the contested decision, the Commission
decided to treat those measures as State aid within the meaning
of Article 87 EC but declared them compatible with the EC
Treaty under Article 86(2).

By its first plea, the applicant alleges that the statement of
reasons for the contested decision is erroneous and that the
decision infringes Article 86(2) EC and the provisions on State
aid. It disputes the Commission's finding that the activities of
the two channels in question are a service in the general
interest within the meaning of Article 86(2) and points out
that, although its own activities are almost identical, they are
not regarded as being in the general interest. It also calls into
question the financial assessment of
the aid made by the
Commission in the contested decision.

By its second plea, the applicant submits that the Commission
misapplied Directive 80/723 (1) when it decided that that direc-
tive did not apply to the broadcasting activities of public chan-
nels before 2000. On the same basis, the applicant alleges
misapplication of the Protocol on the system of public broad-
casting in the Member States, which is annexed to the EC
Treaty.

(1) Commission Directive 80/723/EEC of 25 June 1980 on the trans-
parency of financial relations between Member States and public
undertakings (OJ 1980 L 195, p. 35).

Action brought on 20 April 2004 by Koldo Gorostiaga
Atxalandabaso against the European Parliament

(Case T-146/04)

(2004/C 168/16)

(Language of the case: French)

European Communities on 20 April 2004 by Koldo Gorostiaga
Atxalandabaso, residing in Saint Pierre d'Irube (France), repre-
sented by Didier Rouget, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul European Parliament decision of 24 February 2004
to make deductions on the allowances owing to the appli-
cant until his alleged debt to the Parliament is paid off;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested decision, the European Parliament found that,
in the absence of vouchers attesting to the use of the various
parliamentary allowances, the applicant, a Member of Parlia-
ment, owed the sum of EUR 118 360.18 and proceeded to
make deductions on those allowances.

The applicant contests that decision, arguing that the Parlia-
ment infringed the Rules governing the payment of expenses
and allowances to Members, inter alia on the grounds that it
was taken by the Secretary-General of the Parliament and not
by the Bureau of the Parliament, as provided for by Article 27
of those rules. The applicant also alleges that the contested
impartiality,
decision infringes the principles of objectivity,
equality and non-discrimination and also the principle that
both parties must be heard and the rights of the defence. He
also alleges that the contested decision did not contain suffi-
cient reasons and that it is a misuse of powers, since it was
adopted to attain purely political objectives. Lastly, the appli-
cant states that there has been a manifest error of appreciation
by the Parliament.

Action brought on 23 April 2004 by Brian M. Ross against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-147/04)

(2004/C 168/17)

(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

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 April 2004 by Brian M. Ross,
residing in Morpeth (United Kingdom), represented by Eric
Boigelot, lawyer.

C 168/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.6.2004

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of 31 March 2003 definitively adopting
the applicant's career development report for the period
2001/2002;

— Annul the said report;

— Annul the implicit decision to dismiss the applicant's claim,
brought on 24 September 2002 (R/562/03) for annulment
of the contested decision;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas and principal arguments relied on by the applicants
in this case are identical to those put forward in Cases T-43/04
and T-47/04.

— Order the defendant to pay the applicant damages for non-
material
at
on
EUR 10 000, subject to increase or decrease in the course
of the proceedings;

equitable

grounds

assessed

loss,

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant pleads infringement of
Article 25(2) and Articles 26 to 43 of the Staff Regulations and
the General provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff
Regulations, as adopted by the Commission on 26 April 2002.
He also pleads misuse of powers, infringement of general prin-
ciples of law, such as the rights of the defence, the principle of
sound administration and the principle of equal treatment, and
a manifest error of assessment.

Action brought on 26 April 2004 by Imre Czigany, Isabel
Alves, Georgette Henningsen and Michel Lucas against
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-149/04)

(2004/C 168/18)

(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 26 April 2004 by Imre Czigany,
residing in Rhode St. Genèse, Belgium, Isabel Alves, residing in
Luxembourg, Georgette Henningsen, residing in Brussels and
Michel Lucas,
represented by Gilles
Bounéou and Frédéric Frabetti,
lawyers, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

residing in Brussels,

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Action brought on 16 April 2004 by Bernard Nonat
against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-151/04)

(2004/C 168/19)

(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 16 April 2004 by Bernard Nonat,
residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert
Coolen, Jean-Nöel Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision establishing the final career develop-
ment report for the period from 1 July to 31 December
2002;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in this case objects to his career development
report, as drawn up for the period from 1 July to 31 December
2002.

In support of his claims, the applicant argues:

— failure to observe the obligation to state reasons;

— infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and the
transitional measures applicable to the appraisal exercise
2001-2002;

— infringement of Article 5(5)(c) of the General Provisions for

Implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations;

— manifest error of assessment;

— infringement of the principle of equal treatment and non-

discrimination;

— Annul the appraisal exercise 2001-2002 in respect of the

applicants;

— lack of consistency between the comments and the mark

awarded.

— Alternatively, annul

the applicants' career development

reports (REC/CDR) for the period 1.7.2001- 31.12.2002;