Case T-214/05: Action brought on 27 May 2005 by Hippocrate Vounakis against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-08-20
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, professional career, report, staff assessment

20.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/23

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The parties shall bear their own costs.

(1) OJ C 284 of 20.11.2004.

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 27 May 2005

in Case T-485/04 Agence de coopération des bibliothèques
et centres de documentation en Bretagne (COBB) v
Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Inadmissibility — Documents not published or notified —
Obligation on interested party to request copy within reason-
able time-limit — Action brought out of time)

(2005/C 205/42)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case T-485/04: Agence de coopération des bibliothèques et
centres de documentation en Bretagne (COBB), established in
Rennes (France), represented by J.-P. Martin,
lawyer, against
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: L. Flynn,
with an address for service in Luxembourg) — action for annul-
ment of
the Commission's decision of 9 September 2003
excluding the operation ‘Réseau des périodiques de Bretagne,
année 1999’
from the
expenditure eligible under the European Regional Development
Fund (ERDF) programme named ‘Objectif 5b Bretagne 1994-
1999’ — the Court of First
Instance (Second Chamber),
composed of M. Pirrung, President, N.J. Forwood and S. Papa-
savvas, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 27 May
2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

(Brittany Periodicals Network 1999)

1. The application is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

2. The application shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by

the Commission.

(1) OJ C 57 of 5.03.2005.

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE

of 2 June 2005

in Case T-125/05 R: Umwelt- und Ingenieurtechnik GmbH
Dresden v Commission of the European Communities

(Tendering procedure — Interim proceedings — Urgency —
Absence)

(2005/C 205/43)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case T-125/05 R: Umwelt- und Ingenieurtechnik GmbH
Dresden, established in Dresden (Germany), represented by H.
Robl,
lawyer, against Commission of the European Commu-
nities (Agents: M. Wilderspin and S. Fries, with an address for
service in Luxembourg): action for suspension of implementa-
tion of the decisions of the Commission not to award the appli-
cant Lot No 2 of
the EuropeAid/119151/D/S/UA contract
called ‘Plan Improvement Project for South Ukraine NPP’ and to
award the lot to another company and, alternatively, for an
order for other interim measures — the President of the Court
of First Instance made an order on 2 June 2005, the operative
part of which is as follows:

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.

Action brought on 27 May 2005 by Hippocrate Vounakis
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-214/05)

(2005/C 205/44)

(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 27 May 2005 by Hippocrate
Vounakis, residing in Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium), repre-
sented by Sébastien Orlandi, Xavier Martin, Albert Coolen,
Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address
for service in Luxembourg.

C 205/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.8.2005

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order the defendant to pay all of the costs.

1. annul the decision of the Commission establishing his 2003

Career Development Report;

2. order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By his claim, the applicant seeks annulment of his 2003 Career
Development Report. In support of his action, he submits that
the contested report infringes Article 43 of the Staff Regula-
tions, their general implementing provisions and the duty to
give reasons and is the result of a manifest error of assessment.
In that context, the applicant points to several alleged inconsis-
tencies between, on the one hand, the marks awarded to him
and, on the other, the associated comments.

Action brought on 27 May 2005 by Marie-Yolande Beau
against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-215/05)

(2005/C 205/45)

(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 27 May 2005 by Marie-Yolande
Beau, residing in Paris, represented by Georges Vandersanden
and Laure Levi, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the appointing authority refusing to
accede to the request for recognition of the occupational
origin of her disease and charging to her the fees and inci-
dental costs of the doctor nominated by her and half of the
fees and incidental costs of the third doctor,

In the present proceedings, the applicant is challenging the
appointing authority's refusal
for
recognition, in accordance with Article 73 of the Staff Regula-
tions, of the occupational origin of her disease.

to accede to her request

In that regard, she asserts that she began to have serious
respiratory problems early in 1996, whereas upon being
recruited, in 1988, she was in good health. Furthermore, a deci-
sion was taken to invalid her from the service.

In support of the form of order sought, the applicant claims
that the medical committee:

— misunderstood the concept of occupational disease and
failed to comply with its terms of reference. In that regard,
the applicant asserts that the medical committee did not
respond in its report to the question whether the occupa-
tional factor was one factor or the factor that triggered her
pathology. On that point, the fact that the applicant has
continued to suffer certain difficulties after leaving the
service does not mean that her pathology could not have
an occupational origin. Furthermore, the Commission did
not make a finding as to the possible application in the
present case of Article 14 of the Staff Regulations,

— did not give a proper account of the reasons for its findings,
reports that were appreciably

in the light of medical
different,

— failed to take the relevant medical reports into considera-

tion,

— based its findings on an incomplete report,

— subjected the applicant

to respiratory functional

which, unlike a possible provocation test
tobacco, which was not carried out, could not be relevant.

tests
specific to