Case T-113/05: Action brought on 28 February 2005 by Angel Angelidis against the European Paliament
Date: 2005-05-14
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Parliament, European official, action by staff, appointment of staff, regulations for civil servants

C 115/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.5.2005

Action brought on 25 February 2005 by UCB SA against
the Commission of the European Communities

ment would have the effect, if not the object, of avoiding
the application of the rules on limitation;

(Case T-111/05)

(2005/C 115/57)

(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 25 February 2005 by UCB SA,
Brussels, represented by Jacques Bourgeois, Jean-François Bellis
and Martin Favart, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— the Commission was wrong to impose a fine on the appli-
cant in respect of both the worldwide cartel, when that
infringement was already time-barred, and the intra-Com-
in the light of the Commission's leniency
munity cartel,
notices. If the defendant had drawn that distinction, as it
should have done, it would necessarily have arrived at the
conclusion that no fine must be imposed in this case;

— in the alternative, the infringement found against the appli-
cant would have been time-barred, in the absence of the
information voluntarily supplied by the applicant itself in
1999.

(1) Not yet published in the OJEU.

— annul the Commission Decision of 9 December 2004 in
Case COMP/E-2/37.533 relating to a proceeding under
Article 81 EC — Choline Chloride;

Action brought on 28 February 2005 by Angel Angelidis
against the European Paliament

— at the very least, annul the fine imposed on UCB by that

decision, or substantially reduce the amount thereof;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision contested in the present case is the same as that
forming the subject-matter of Case T-101/05 BASF v Commis-
sion (1). By that decision, the Commission found that the six
companies to which the decision was addressed infringed
Article 81(1) of the EC Treaty by participating in a series of
agreements and concerted practices consisting of price fixing,
market sharing and agreed actions against competitors (control
of processors) in the choline chloride sector in the European
Economic Area. That anti-competitive conduct manifested itself
at two different but closely-linked areas, namely world level
and European level.

In support of its application, the applicant claims:

— that the contested decision was wrong to characterise the
infringement as a single and continuous infringement,
when in reality there must be two separate infringements: a
worldwide cartel, from October 1992 to April 1994, and
an intra-Community cartel, from March 1994 to September
1998. In the applicant's submission, the Commission's argu-

(Case T-113/05)

(2005/C 115/58)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28
February 2005 by Angel Angelidis, residing in Luxembourg,
represented by Eric Boigelot, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision taken by the Secretary-General of Parlia-
ment on 24 March 2004 to reject the candidature of the
applicant for the A2 post of Director D (Budgetary Affairs)
in the ‘Internal Policies’ DG (Notice of Vacancy No 10069)
to which another candidate was appointed;

— annul the appointment of the other candidate for the post;

14.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/33

— annul

the decision of

the appointing authority of 23
November 2004 rejecting the complaint
lodged under
Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations against the decision
the decision to
rejecting his candidature and against
appoint another candidate to the post;

— order compensation to be paid for the non-material damage
suffered, assessed on an equitable basis at EUR 5 000 by
way of damages, without prejudice to its increase or reduc-
tion in the course of proceedings;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his application the applicant relies on a plea of
failure to state reasons for the contested decision in breach of
Article 25 of the Staff Regulations. He also raises pleas of
breach of the notice of vacancy, of Article 29(1) and Article 45
of the Staff Regulations, of the principles of equal treatment
and of the right to career advancement and a manifest error of
assessment, on the ground that his professional experience, his
responsibilities and his management and negotiating skills were
superior to those of the candidate selected. Finally the applicant
alleges misuse of powers.

Action brought on 28 February 2005 by Joerg Peter Block
the European
and Others against

the Commission of
Communities

(Case T-114/05)

(2005/C 115/59)

(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 28 February 2005 by Joerg Peter
Block, residing in Sterrebeek (Belgium), and 12 others, repre-
sented by Stéphane Rodrigues and Alice Jaune, lawyers.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the decisions of the appointing authority rejecting
the complaints of the applicants taken at the same time as
the decisions of the appointing authority of 1 May 2004
altering the applicants' grades to Grade A*8 or Grade B*8
as the case may be;

— annul the salary statements of the applicants implementing
the decision of the appointing authority to alter the appli-

cants' grades to Grade A*8 or Grade B*8 as the case may
be, from 1 May 2004;

— inform the appointing authority of the effects of the annul-
ment of
the
the contested decisions namely,
reclassification of the applicants' grades to Grade A*9 or
Grade B*9, as the case may be, with retroactive effect from
1 May 2004;

inter alia,

— in the alternative, order the Commission to recognise that
the applicants are eligible for promotion to Grade A*10 or
Grade B*10, as the case may be, when they are next
promoted;

— order the Commission to make good the damage suffered
by the applicants as a result of their not being classified in
Grade A*9 or Grade B*9, as the case may be, from 1 May
2004;

— order the defendant to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants are all officials of the Commission who were
appointed at Grade A7 and B2 before the entry into force of
the new Staff Regulations on 1 May 2004. They contest their
classification in Grade A*8 and B*8 respectively pursuant to
Article 2 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations.

In support of their application the applicants submit that the
application to them of that provision is unlawful, as it breaches
Article 6 of the Staff Regulations, the principles of equivalence
of the old and new career structures and of equal treatment, as
well as the applicants' legitimate expectations and established
rights. The applicants also allege misuse of powers.

Action brought on 28 February 2005 by José Jiménez
the European
Martinez against

the Commission of

Communities

(Case T-115/05)

(2005/C 115/60)

(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 28 February 2005 by José Jiménez
Martinez, residing in Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot,
lawyer.