Case C-355/04 P: Appeal brought on 17 August 2004 by SEGI, A. Zubimendi Izaga, A. Galarraga against the order made on 7 June 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-338/02 between SEGI, A. Zubimendi Izaga, A. Galarraga and the Council of the European Union, supported by the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom
Date: 2004-10-09
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Council of the European Union, action for annulment (EU), appeal, association, damage, fight against crime, rights of the defence, terrorism

C 251/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.10.2004

Appeal brought on 17 August 2004 by SEGI, A. Zubi-
mendi Izaga, A. Galarraga against the order made on 7
June 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-338/02
between SEGI, A. Zubimendi Izaga, A. Galarraga and the
supported by the
Council of

the European Union,

Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom

Appeal brought on 27 August 2004 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the judgment delivered
on 10 June 2004 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities in Joined
Cases T-153/01 and T-323/01 between Ms M. Alvarez
Moreno and Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-355/04 P)

(2004/C 251/18)

(Case C-373/04 P)

(2004/C 251/19)

An appeal against the order made on 7 June 2004 by the
Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities in Case T-338/02 between SEGI, A. Zubimendi
Izaga, A. Galarraga and the Council of the European Union,
supported by the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom,
was brought before the Court of
the European
Communities on 17 August 2004 by SEGI, A. Zubimendi
Izaga, A. Galarraga.

Justice of

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 27 August 2004
by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the Euro-
pean Communities in Joined Cases T/153/01 and T-323/01
between M. Alvarez Moreno and the Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 27 August 2004 by the
Commission of
the European Communities, represented by
F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and D. Martin, Agents.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

The appellant claims that the Court should:

1. set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First

Instance as regards Case T-323/01;

1. hold that the present appeal is well-founded and annul the

contested order;

2. give, by virtue of Article 61 of the Protocol on the Statute
of the Court of Justice, a final ruling on the present case and
uphold the arguments put forward by the applicants at first
instance, namely, to reiterate, order the defendant to pay
compensation amounting to EUR 1 000 000 to the associa-
tion SEGI and EUR 100 000 to each of the other two appli-
cants, Araitz Zubimendi
and Aritza Galarraga.
Payment of default interest on those sums is sought at the
rate of 4.5 % per annum from the date of the Court's judg-
ment until payment is made. An order is sought that the
Council bear its own costs and those of the applicants.

Izaga

Pleas and main arguments

The pleas and main arguments relied on are identical to those
in Case C-354/04 P.

2. declare the application inadmissible in Case T-323/01;

3.

in the alternative, give judgment itself in the present case, in
accordance with Article 61 of the EC Statute, and dismiss
the application in Case T-323/01 as unfounded;

4. order Ms Alvarez Moreno to pay the costs of the present

case and to bear her own costs in Case T-323/01.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The action brought by Ms Alvarez Moreno in Case T-323/01
should be declared inadmissible. The Court of First Instance
erred in law in classifying the letter of 23 February 2001 as a
‘decision’ and, consequently, in conferring on it the status of an
act adversely affecting the applicant. First, the applicant's letter
to the Commission does not contain a request for a decision
within the meaning of Article 90 of the Staff Regulations, but
only a request for information concerning the legal basis on
which the Commission relied when deciding that it would no
longer recruit interpreters aged more than 65 years. Accord-
ingly, the answer to that letter could not constitute an act
adversely affecting the applicant within the meaning of that
provision. Next, the letter of 23 February does not in any event
contain any decision of the Commission producing binding
legal effects, of such a kind as to affect the applicant's interests,
by significantly altering her legal position.