Case T-246/04: Action brought on 17 June 2004 by Jacques Wunenburger against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-08-28
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action by staff, action for annulment (EU), indemnification, professional career, report, staff assessment

28.8.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/31

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

— Partially

annul Commission Decision 2004/247/EC (1)

insofar as it concerns article 2 para 3 and article 3 sub b;

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

ings;

Pleas in law and main arguments:

By the contested decision the Commission decided not
to
amended Annex I to Directive 91/414 (2) so as to include
‘Simazine’ among the active substances listed there. Article 4 of
Directive 91/414 states that only plant protection products
containing substances listed in Annex I may be authorised by
Member States. By refusing to include Simazine in Annex I the
Commission decided not to allow further use of plant protec-
tion products containing this substance.

The applicants do not challenge this aspect of the decision but
rather certain transitional provisions which allow until 30 June
2007 and subject
to conditions aimed at minimising risk
certain limited uses of products containing Simazine. In the
preamble to its decision the Commission justified these transi-
tional measures through the current absence of efficient alter-
natives and the need to allow time for their development.

In support of their application the applicants invoke the pleas
and arguments invoked by the same applicants in case T-236/
04.

(1) OJ L 78 16.3.2004 p. 50.
(2) Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the
placing of plant protection products on the market, Official Journal
L 230 , 19.8.1991, p. 1-32.

Action brought on 17 June 2004 by Elisabeth Saskia Smit
against Europol

(Case T-244/04)

(2004/C 217/55)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

An action against Europol was brought before the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities on 17 June 2004
by Elisabeth Saskia Smit, residing in Scheveningen (Nether-
lands), represented by P. de Casparis and M.F. Baltussen.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Europol's decision of 19 May 2003 together with the

decision of 19 March 2004 on her complaint;

— order Europol to pay the costs.

The applicant contests the defendant's decision not to consider
her for a number of vacant posts. The applicant submits that
the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment.

Action brought on 17 June 2004 by Jacques Wunenburger
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-246/04)

(2004/C 217/56)

(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 17 June 2004 by Jacques Wunen-
burger, residing in Zagreb (Croatia), represented by E. Boigelot,
lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision adopted by Mr David O'Sullivan, Secre-
tary General, on 11 September 2003 in his capacity as
appeal assessor and adversely affecting the applicant in that
it confirms and definitively approves the applicant's Career
Development Report for the period 1 July 2001 to 21
December 2002;

— annul that report;

— annul

the decision expressly the applicant's complaint,
lodged in accordance with Article 90(2) of the Staff Regula-
tions on 9 December 2003 and registered as No R/711/03
and seeking annulment of the contested decision;

— award the applicant damages for non-material harm and for
adversely affecting his career, owing to the substantial irre-
gularities and also to the significant delay in drawing up
that report, damages assessed on an equitable basis at
EUR 4 000, subject to such amount being increased or
reduced in the course of the proceedings;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant claims that there has
been a breach of the second paragraph of Article 25 and of
Articles 26 and 43 of the Staff Regulations and also of the
implementing provisions relating to the latter article
general
adopted by the Commission on 26 April 2002. He also claims
that there has been a breach of the rights of defence, of the
principle of sound administration, of the duty to have regard
for his welfare and of the principle of equal treatment, and also
a manifest error of assessment.