Case T-312/04: Action brought on 22 July 2004 by Vittorio Di Bucci against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-10-23
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, equal treatment, professional career, promotion, staff assessment

23.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/45

Action brought on 22 July 2004 by Vittorio Di Bucci
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-312/04)

(2004/C 262/85)

(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 22 July 2004 by Vittorio Di Bucci,
residing in Brussels, represented by Marc van der Woude and
Valérie Landes, lawyers.

European Communities on 30 July 2004 by Hewlett-Packard
GmbH, having its registered office in Böblingen (Germany),
represented by Fabienne Boulanger, Marius Mrozek and
Michael Tervooren, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Commission Decision REM 06/02 of 7 April 2004
holding that a refund is not justified in a specific case.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

— annul the decision of the Director General of the Legal
Service awarding him a single priority point of the directo-
rate general in the 2003 promotions procedure, confirmed
and made final by the decision of the appointing authority
rejecting the application to reconsider its decision;

— annul the decision of the appointing authority not to award
the
him any special priority points under the aegis of
‘Comité de promotion pour activités supplémentaires dans
l'intérêt de l'institution’ in the 2003 promotions procedure;

— annul the decision of the appointing authority to award
him a total of 20 points in the 2003 promotions procedure,
the 2003 list of meritorious officials in Grade A 5, the
2003 list of officials promoted to Grade A 4 and, in any
event, the decision not to include his name in those lists;

— annul,

to the extent necessary,

the rejection of his

complaint;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The pleas in law and main arguments in this case are similar to
those relied upon in Case T-311/04 José Luis Buendia Sierra v
Commission

Action brought on 30 July 2004 by Hewlett-Packard
GmbH against the Commission of the European Com-
munities

(Case T-313/04)

(2004/C 262/86)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the

On 21 December 1995 the applicant released from its customs
warehouse certain goods
(printers and printer cartridges)
originating in Singapore for free circulation within the Com-
munity. A customs debt arose in respect of those goods at the
time of their release for free circulation. According to the appli-
the goods were released for free circulation on 21
cant,
December 1995 in order
the preferential
customs rates in force up to 31 December 1995 could be
claimed. Otherwise, at the time when the goods were released
for free circulation, higher customs rates in respect of their
release would have applied with effect from 1 January 1996.
By Regulation No 3009/95 (1) goods having the same customs
tariff number as those of the applicant were zero-rated with
effect from 1 January 1996.

to ensure that

In November 1996 the applicant applied to the German
customs authorities for a refund of the amount that had been
turned down. The German
charged.
customs authorities, with the agreement of
the applicant,
referred the matter to the Commission.

Its application was

The applicant invokes Article 239 of the Customs Code and
submits that, in view of the delay in the publication of, and
failure timeously to notify, Regulation No 3009/95, and by
reason of its deliberate back-dating and reference to a Council
Regulation No 3093/95 (2) of 22 December 1995 which was
not published until 21 February 1996, the Commission has
infringed the principle that Community institutions must act in
a foreseeable manner and has consequently infringed the prin-
ciple of legal certainty.

The applicant submits further that there has been a breach of
Article 12 of Council Regulation No 2658/87, (3) which
prescribes that the full text of the Combined Nomenclature for
a particular year must be published by no later than 31
October of the preceding year. The purpose of that provision is
specifically to provide market participants with reliable infor-
mation on imminent financial consequences and it thus estab-
lishes a basis on which Community citizens can make informed
plans enabling them to act in an appropriate manner.