Case T-235/05: Action brought on 20 June 2005 by Jan Siffert against the Court of Justice of the European Communities
Date: 2005-08-20
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union, European official, action by staff, administrative reform, equal treatment, personnel administration, regulations for civil servants, staff assessment

20.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/31

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Action brought on 13 June 2005 by Gerrit Bethuyne and
the European
four others against

the Commission of
Communities

1. Annul

the Commission Decision of 16 March 2005
concerning the second tranche of restructuring aid paid by
France to National Maritime Corse-Méditerranée (SNCM);

2. Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

is

action

brought

This
against Commission Decision
C(2004)4751 final of 16 March 2005 declaring payment of the
second tranche of aid given by France to Société Nationale
Maritime Corse-Méditerranée (SNCM) for restructuring to be
compatible, with certain conditions, with the common market
(Aid No C 58/2002, ex N 118(2002)). That decision is a
follow-up to the decision of 9 July 2003, which authorised
subject to conditions the first tranche of the restructuring aid at
issue.

In support of its claims, the applicant pleads the infringement
of Article 87 of the EC Treaty and the rules adopted for its
application which are relevant in this case, namely the condi-
tions imposed by the decision of 9 July 2003 and the condi-
tions arising from the Commission's 1997 Community guide-
lines on State aid to maritime transport (1) and the Commis-
sion's 1999 Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing
and restructuring firms in difficulty (2), as applicable at the time
when the examination procedure for the contested aid was
opened.

(Case T-234/05)

(2005/C 205/56)

(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 13 June 2005 by Gerrit Bethuyne,
residing in Dentergem (Belgium), and four others, represented
by Sébastien Orlandi, Xavier Martin, Albert Coolen and Etienne
Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

1. annul the decisions to appoint the applicants officials of the
European Communities, insofar as those decisions determine
their grade of recruitment in accordance with Article 12 of
Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

2. order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas and arguments relied on by the applicants are iden-
tical to those of the applicants in Case T-130/05 (1).

(1) OJ C 132, 28.5.2005, p. 31.

The applicant states in that connection that, contrary to the
decision of 9 July 2003, SNCM's shares in the Compagnie
Corse Meditérranée were not
Furthermore, SNCM
continued to apply a pricing policy aiming to offer lower
prices than its competitors.

sold.

Action brought on 20 June 2005 by Jan Siffert against the
Court of Justice of the European Communities

regards

Furthermore, as
the abovementioned Community
the restructuring plan submitted by the French
guidelines,
Republic was not fully implemented. In addition, the amount
of aid was not limited to the strict minimum.

(1) OJ C 205 of 5.7.1997, p. 5
(2) OJ C 288 of 9.10.1999, p. 2

(Case T-235/05)

(2005/C 205/57)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 20 June 2005 by Jan Siffert,
residing in Brussels
represented by Sébastien
Orlandi, Xavier Martin, Albert Coolen and Etienne Marchal,
lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

(Belgium),

C 205/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.8.2005

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. annul the decision to appoint the applicant an official of the
European Communities, insofar as it determines his grade of
recruitment in accordance with Article 12 of Annex XIII to
the Staff Regulations;

The applicant then refers to alleged inconsistency between, on
the one hand, the remarks made in the contested report which
demonstrate improvement in that he exceeded his objectives
and, on the other, the marks awarded him which were below
average.

2. order the defendant to pay the costs.

the applicant alleges lack of a relevant statement of

Last,
reasons for the contested decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas and main arguments are identical to those raised in
Case T-130/05 Albert-Bousquet and Others v Commission (1).

(1) OJ C 132, 28.5.2005, p. 31.

Action brought on 17 June 2005 by Editions Odile Jacob
SAS against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities

Action brought on 17 June 2005 by Willem Aldershoff
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-236/05)

(2005/C 205/58)

(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 17 June 2005 by Willem
represented by Sébastien
Aldershoff,
Orlandi, Xavier Martin, Albert Coolen,
Jean-Noël Louis and
Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxem-
bourg.

residing in Brussels,

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision approving his career development report
for the period from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003,

(Case T-237/05)

(2005/C 205/59)

(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 17 June 2005 by Editions Odile
Jacob SAS, established in Paris, represented by W. van Weert
and O. Fréget, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. annul

the contested decision,

in which the Commission
refused to send to the applicant documents which it had
requested, since:

— the Commission did not specifically and individually
examine each of the documents to which the applicant
was seeking access;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

— the Commission wrongly applied the exceptions under

Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001;

Pleas in law and main arguments

— the Commission infringed in any event the applicant's

right to partial access to the documents requested;

In support of his action, the applicant alleges manifest error of
assessment on account of the fact that he was not given the
assessment ‘Exceptional’ or ‘Very good’ for his performance,
although he had attained, and even exceeded, his objectives
despite particular problems encountered in this work-place.

— the Commission infringed the principle of proportion-
the exceptions
ality by not balancing application of
under Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 with
the higher interest justifying the disclosure of the docu-
ments.