Case T-23/05: Action brought on 10 January 2005 by Eric Gippini Fournier against Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-04-02
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), equal treatment, regulations for civil servants, staff assessment

2.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/37

Action brought on 11 January 2005 by Antonello Violetti
and Others against Commission of the European Commu-
nities

(Case T-22/05)

(2005/C 82/67)

(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 11 January 2005 by Antonello
Violetti, residing in Cittiglio (Italy), and 12 other officials, repre-
sented by E. Boigelot, lawyer.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

1. order the production of all the files concerning the appli-
cants and sealed by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF);

2. order the production of the report which concludes the

internal investigation into the applicants;

3. annul the investigation into the applicants;

4. annul the Note from OLAF containing the notification of
the investigation and the information of the Italian judicial
authorities;

5. annul the report of the investigation sent to the Italian judi-

cial authorities;

6. annul all measures which may be taken subsequently to the
bringing of this action following and/or relating to those
decisions;

7. order the Commission to pay damages and interest, assessed
on an equitable basis at EUR 30 000 for each applicant,
subject to increase and/or decrease in the course of the
proceedings;

8.

in any event, order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

OLAF notified the applicants that an internal investigation had
been opened concerning the application of the accident insur-
ance
the officials
concerned applied for access to their medical files. That access
was refused them.

that notification,

Following

scheme.

The plea in law alleges infringement of Article 73 of the Staff
Regulations, Article 28 of the Conditions of employment of
other servants, infringement of the Rules on the insurance of
officials of the European Communities against the risk of acci-
dent and of occupational disease, disregard of the general prin-

ciples of law, such as the principle of sound administration and
the principle of equal treatment, and disregard of the duty to
have regard for the welfare of officials and of the principles
which require OLAF and the Commission to adopt decisions
only on the basis of lawful grounds, that is to say grounds
which are relevant and not vitiated by a manifest error of
assessment.

The applicants submit also that Regulation 1073/1999 (1) and
Commission Decision 1999/396/EC of 2 June 1999 (2) are
illegal and, as a result, plead their illegality within the meaning
of Article 241 of the EC Treaty.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted
by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (OJ 1999 L 136, p. 1).
(2) Commission Decision 1999/396/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 2 June 1999
concerning the terms and conditions for internal investigations in
relation to the prevention of
fraud, corruption and any illegal
activity detrimental to the Communities' interests (OJ 1999 L 149,
p. 57).

Action brought on 10 January 2005 by Eric Gippini Four-
nier against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-23/05)

(2005/C 82/68)

(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 10 January 2005 by Eric Gippini
Fournier, residing in Brussels, represented by A. Theissen,
lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. annul the decisions to award zero ‘DG priority points’ to the
applicant in the 2003 promotion procedure; to reject his
appeal to the Promotions Committee seeking the award to
the applicant of ‘DG priority points’ (or of ‘appeal’ points or
of priority points by whatever description); to refuse to
award priority points for work in the interest of the institu-
tion under Article 9 of the General Provisions implementing
Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;

C 82/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.4.2005

2. order the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of
EUR 2 500 as compensation for non-material loss suffered;

The applicants claim that the Court should:

3. order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a Commission official seconded to the Court of
Justice in the interests of the service from 1 March 2002 to 6
October 2003, raises an objection of
the
General Provisions implementing Article 45 of the Staff Regula-
tions because of a lack of comparison of his merits with those
of other officials in other Directorates General. He also claims
that most of the categories of priority points are illegal because
they are contrary to Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and to
the principle of non-discrimination.

illegality against

The applicant pleads infringement of Articles 5, 25, 43 and 45
of the Staff Regulations, of the second subparagraph of Article
2(1) of the General Provisions implementing Article 43 of the
Staff Regulations, as well as of Article 2(1) and Article 6(3), (4)
and (5) of the General Provisions implementing Article 45 of
the Staff Regulations. The applicant also pleads infringement of
the principles of proportionality, non-discrimination, equal
treatment and protection of legitimate expectations. The appli-
cant claims finally that there were also procedural irregularities,
misuse of powers, failure to state reasons and to inform him of
various measures and decisions, as well as manifest errors of
assessment.

Action brought on 21 January 2005 by Standard Commer-
cial Corporation, Standard Commercial Tobacco Corpora-
tion and Trans-Continental Leaf Tobacco Corporation
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-24/05)

(2005/C 82/69)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 21 January 2005 by Standard
Commercial Corporation, established in Wilson, North Carolina
(USA), Standard Commercial Tobacco Corporation, established
in Wilson, North Carolina (USA) and Trans-Continental Leaf
Tobacco Corporation established in Vaduz (Liechtenstein),
represented by M. Odriozola, M.Marañón and A. Emch,
lawyers.

— annul the Decision of the Commission of the European
Communities of 20 October 2004 in Case COMP/
C.38.238/B.2 - Raw Tobacco Spain, insofar as it relates to
the applicants;

— order the Commission to pay the applicants' legal fees and

expenses.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the contested decision the Commission found that the appli-
cants, among other undertakings, infringed Article 81(1) EC by
concluding agreements and/or concerted practices, during the
period 1996-2001, designed to fix each year the (maximum)
average delivery price of each variety of raw tobacco (all quali-
ties) and to share out the quantities of each variety of raw
tobacco to be bought. The Commission further found that for
the last three years (1999 - 2001) they had also agreed among
themselves price brackets per quality grade of each variety of
raw tobacco and additional conditions.

In support of their application the applicants claim first of all
that the Commission misapplied Article 81(1) EC and Article
23 (2) of Regulation 1/2003 (1) in holding the applicants liable
for the infringement committed by their subsidiary. According
to the applicants the Commission proved neither that the appli-
cants were in a position to exercise decisive influence over
their subsidiary during the whole duration of the infringement
nor that they actually exercised any influence over the subsi-
diary's policy. In the alternative, the applicants also claim that
the Commission stated insufficient reasons for holding them
liable for their subsidiary's infringement.

Further, the applicants claim that the Commission violated the
principle of equal treatment by failing to apply to the appli-
cants the criteria it had applied in excluding liability of other
parent companies for subsidiaries participating in the infringe-
ment in question. This includes failing to take into account that
one of the applicants' interest in its subsidiary was of purely
financial nature even though the Commission had excluded
liability of another parent undertaking on exactly these
grounds.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the
implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles
81 and 82 of the Treaty, OJ L 1, 4/1/2003 p. 1.