Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 September 2004 in Case T-44/03: Giorgio Lebedef and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Remuneration — Travelling expenses — Amendment of the method of calculation — Second action relating to different years — Res judicata — Absence of material capable of calling in question the judgment delivered — Application manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2004-12-18
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Greece, action for annulment (EU), allowances and expenses, regulations for civil servants

C 314/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.12.2004

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 22 September 2004

in Case T-44/03: Giorgio Lebedef and Others v Commis-
sion of the European Communities (1)

(Officials — Remuneration — Travelling expenses —
Amendment of the method of calculation — Second action
relating to different years — Res judicata — Absence of
material capable of calling in question the judgment delivered
— Application manifestly unfounded)

Action brought on 9 September 2004 by the Hellenic
the European
Republic

the Commission of

against

Communities

(Case T-364/04)

(2004/C 314/51)

(Language of the case: Greek)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 9 September 2004 by the Hellenic
Republic, represented by I. Khalkias and Eleni Evolopoulou,
members of the State Legal Service.

(2004/C 314/50)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(Language of the case: French)

— annul or modify the contested decision. E 2004/561/EC/

16.7.2004. (1)

J. Currall and V.

In Case T-44/03: Giorgio Lebedef, an official of the Commis-
sion of the European Communities, residing in Senningerberg
(Luxembourg), and the 49 other officials named in an annex to
the order, represented by G. Bounéou, lawyer, with an address
for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the Euro-
Joris, with an
pean Communities (Agents:
address for service in Luxembourg) – application for annulment
of the Commission's decision amending, for the years 1993,
1994 and 1995, the method used in calculating the annual
expenses of travelling to Greece as regards the itinerary via
Brindisi and also annulment of the applicants' reimbursement
the Court of First
statements implementing that decision,
Instance (Third Chamber), composed of
J. Azizi, President,
M. Jaeger and F. Dehousse, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
order on 22 September 2004, in which it:

1. Dismisses the application;

2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 101 of 26.4.2003.

Pleas in law and main arguments

in clearing the
In the contested decision the Commission,
accounts in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 (2),
excluded from Community financing various
expenditure
incurred by the Hellenic Republic in the fruit and vegetables
sector and in the sector of animal premiums, with the result
that it is not recognised as legitimate Community expenditure
and is chargeable to the Hellenic Republic.

More specifically, certain of that expenditure relates to produc-
tion aid for processors of peaches, pursuant to Regulation No
2201/96 (3),
from which an amount was excluded on the
ground that the minimum price was not complied with. In
support of that limb of its action, the Hellenic Republic alleges
that the provisions of Regulation No 2201/96 and of Regu-
lation No 504/79 (4) were misinterpreted, that the principle of
proportionality was infringed and that
the factual circum-
stances were wrongly assessed.

Further, in the same decision expenditure relating to the sector
of production aid for processing tomatoes was also excluded,
on the ground that there were direct payments of the aid to
tomato producer organisations rather than to the processors. In
support of that limb of its action, the Hellenic Republic relies
on exceptional circumstances, that is to say, the bankruptcy of
processing undertakings and serious cash-flow difficulties,
maintaining that there was no ensuing economic harm to the
Community. It also alleges that the factual circumstances were
wrongly assessed, that
the principle of proportionality was
infringed and that Article 7 of Regulation No 1258/1999 (5)
and Article 8 of Regulation No 1663/1995 (6) were infringed.