Case T-354/04: Action brought on 25 August 2004 by Gaetano Petralia against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-10-23
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action by staff, assistant, information technology profession, professional career, staff assessment

C 262/58

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.10.2004

The applicant submits first that the market in export agency
has many particular features of which the contested decision
fails to take account. The applicant also notes that the descrip-
tion of the aid in the decision is erroneous in that, according to
the applicant, this is individual aid and not an aid scheme, the
aid is given on a discriminatory basis and the criterion for
payment, namely handling small orders, is artificial.

In support of its action, the applicant claims that the decision
has no legal basis in that it declares the aid compatible, as an
aid to culture, pursuant to Article 87(3)(d) EC in respect of the
period prior to 1 November 1993. According to the applicant,
that provision was introduced by the Treaty on European
Union and thus could not form the legal basis for declaring aid
compatible before that Treaty entered into force, namely on 1
November 1993.

The applicant further claims breach of Article 88(3) EC in that
the Commission based its decision on information dated later
than the entry into force of the aid. According to the applicant,
the decision results in a Member State being permitted to
supply evaluation criteria which fluctuate over a period of
more than 10 years, thereby favouring the situation of a State
which has not complied with the obligation to notify,
in
breach of Article 88(3) EC.

Finally,
the applicant claims breach of Article 87(3)(d) EC.
According to the applicant, the Commission declared the aid
compatible on the basis of assessment criteria which form part
of assessment of an aid scheme open to all whilst the aid at
issue is individual aid paid to a single operator. The applicant
also claims that examination of CELF's accounting data shows
that the aid has no link with the handling of small orders.

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant in the present case, who was engaged on the
basis of the notice for the recruitment of temporary agents in
as IT and management assistants in technical research and
development, category B, COM/R/B/02/1999, contests the deci-
sion of
the authority empowered to conclude contracts of
employment definitively classifying him in Grade B 5, step 3.

The applicant took part in the selection procedure on the
presumption that he would be engaged as a member of the
temporary staff on the basis of his professional experience and,
therefore,
in Grade B3 or B4, step 3, relying on the second
paragraph of Title VIII of the notice.

In support of his claims, the applicant alleges error of assess-
ment of his own professional merits.

He further alleges breach of the principle of legitimate expecta-
tions and of the obligation to provide a statement of reasons
for acts of the administration.

Action brought on 27 August 2004 by Co-Frutta Soc.
the European
coop. arl against

the Commission of

Communities

(Case T-355/04)

(2004/C 262/107)

Action brought on 25 August 2004 by Gaetano Petralia
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Language of the case: Italian)

(Case T-354/04)

(2004/C 262/106)

(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 25 August 2004 by Gaetano
Petralia, represented by Carlo Forte, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the authority empowered to conclude
contracts of employment of 7 October 2003 to classify him
in Grade B 5, step 3;

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 27 August 2004 by Co-Frutta Soc.
coop. arl, represented by Wilma Viscardini and Gabriele Donà,
lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul under Article 230 of the EC Treaty the decision of
the Commission of the European Communities in the letter
of the Director General of DG Agriculture dated 28 April
2004 (AGRI/11451/28.04.2004) rejecting Co-Frutta's initial
application for access to documents containing information
on traders registered in the Community as importers of
bananas (OCM bananas)
for the years 1998, 1999 and
2000, together with the implied rejection of Co-Frutta's
confirmatory application submitted by letter of 3 May
2004;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.