Case T-288/04: Action brought on 15 July 2004 by Kris Van Neyghem against the Committee of the Regions
Date: 2004-10-09
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Committee of the Regions, European official, action for annulment (EU), assistant, equal treatment, regulations for civil servants

C 251/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.10.2004

— Grant a declaration that the decision to disjoin the Scottish
Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department
accounts is unlawful to the extent that it is based on non-
in
compliance with the sampling methodology set out
Guideline 8 issued by the Commission Directorate-General
VI (Agriculture) in July 1998;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission's Decision 2004/451 was taken within the
framework of Council Regulation (EC) 1258/1999 (2) on the
financing of the common agricultural policy. By the contested
Article 2 the Commission decided to disjoin the accounts of,
among others, the paying agencies referred to by the applicant,
and make those accounts the subject of a future clearance deci-
sion.

Action brought on 15 July 2004 by Kris Van Neyghem
against the Committee of the Regions

(Case T-288/04)

(2004/C 251/47)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

An action against the Committee of the Regions was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 15 July 2004 by Kris Van Neyghem, residing in Tienen
(Belgium), represented by Dirk Janssens.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Decision 87/03;

The applicant contends that, as far as those agencies are
concerned, the decision to disjoin their accounts was made on
the sole or principal basis that the ‘sampling’ methodology used
by the United Kingdom's National Audit Office for
the
purposes of preparing its audit report and certificates for the
2003 accounts, was different
from the particular sampling
methodology suggested for use in Guideline 8.

— annul any decision connected with or

resulting from

Decision 87/03;

— classify the applicant in Grade B 1, or at least no lower

than Grade B 4, Step 4;

— order the Committee of the Regions to pay all costs of the

proceedings.

In support of its application the applicant first of all submits
that
the Commission has no legal competence to require
national certifying bodies to conform to the methodology laid
down in a Guideline, where it accepts that the criteria laid
down in Regulation 1258/99 as well
as Regulation
1663/1995 (3), have been met. The applicant further contends
that the Commission has misdirected itself in law by inter-
preting its own Guideline as a binding rule of law. Even were it
to be decided, contrary to the applicant's submissions, that the
Guideline is in principle capable of laying down a binding rule
of law, the applicant argues that it is at least ambiguous in its
meaning and the Commission's interpretation is contrary to the
principle of legal certainty. The applicant also alleges that in
the light of the history of the matter, the conduct of the
Commission in seeking to impose its own interpretation of
Guideline 8 is contrary to the protection of legitimate expecta-
tions. Moreover, the Commission's attempt to control the way
in which the United Kingdom National Audit Office exercises
its expertise is, according to the applicant, contrary to the prin-
ciple of subsidiarity laid down in Article 5 of the EC Treaty and
manifested by Article 3 paragraph 1 of Regulation 1663/95.
Finally, the applicant submits that, to the extent that it may be
argued by the Commission that the contested decision was
based on other considerations, it is vitiated by a manifest error
of assessment.

(1) OJ L 155, 30/04/2004, p. 129-133.
(2) OJ L 160, 26/06/1999, p. 103-112.
(3) Commission Regulation (REGULATION) No 1663/95 of 7 July
1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clear-
ance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section, OJ L 158,
08/07/1995, p. 6.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant has been working as an official of the Committee
of the Regions since 1 December 2002. He is challenging the
decision of 26 March 2003 whereby he was definitively classi-
fied in Grade B 5, Step 4.

In support of his application, the applicant argues that the
contested decision is inadequately reasoned and that there has
been a breach of Articles 5(3), 31 and 32 of the Staff Regula-
tions, in conjunction with an infringement of the principle of
equal treatment.

Action brought on 19 July 2004 by Caremar SpA against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-292/04)

(2004/C 251/48)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 19 July 2004 by Caremar SpA and
others,
represented by Gian Michele Roberti, Alessandra
Franchi and Guido Bellitti, lawyers.