Case T-254/05: Action brought on 6 July 2005 by Fachvereinigung Mineralfaserindustrie e.V. Deutsche Gruppe der EURIMA — European Insulation Manufacturers Association against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-09-17
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, State aid, action for annulment (EU), building industry, control of State aid

C 229/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.9.2005

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision adopted by the Authority Responsible
for Concluding Contracts of Employment on 21 March
2005 (notified on 22 March 2005 and received on 24
March 2005) by which it dismissed the applicant's applica-
tion of 23 November 2004, reclassified as a claim, against
the decision fixing the grade and remuneration determined
for the applicant in his capacity as contract staff under the
terms of the contract signed on 23 August 2004;

— in so far as necessary, annul also the original decision, by
which the grade and remuneration were fixed for the appli-
cant in his capacity as contract staff under the terms of the
contract signed on 23 August 2004;

— order

the defendant

to pay EUR 25 000 by way of
damages, subject to an increase or decrease or further speci-
fications;

— infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, in that,
because of the contested decision, the applicant has been
required to perform the same functions as those to which
he been assigned earlier, for much lower remuneration and
in a context of total uncertainty, whereas identical functions
are performed within the Commission by Community offi-
cials enjoying the benefits of the Staff Regulations, a high
degree of security of employment and considerably higher
remuneration.

Action brought on 6 July 2005 by Fachvereinigung Mine-
ralfaserindustrie e.V. Deutsche Gruppe der EURIMA —
European Insulation Manufacturers Association against the
Commission of the European Communities

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

(Case T-254/05)

(2005/C 229/57)

Pleas in law and main arguments

(Language of the case: German)

formerly of

the auxiliary staff

(Category D,
The applicant,
Group VIII, Grade 4) who, following his appointment as a
member of the contract staff, had his remuneration reduced
whilst his duties remained unchanged, challenges the decision
of the administrative authority fixing his grade and remunera-
tion as a member of the contract staff, in Function Group I,
grade 1, step 1.

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 6 July 2005 by Fachvereinigung
Mineralfaserindustrie e.V. Deutsche Gruppe der EURIMA —
(Germany),
European Insulation Manufacturers, Düsseldorf
represented by T. Schmidt-Kötters, lawyer.

The applicant puts forward the following pleas in law in
support of his application:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— infringement of Articles 3a(1)(a) and Article 80(2) and (3)
of the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of
Employment of Other Servants of the European Commu-
nities (CEOS) and a manifest error of assessment in that the
applicant, at the time of his appointment as a member of
the contract staff, was graded in a function group which is
not commensurate with the description of his qualifications
or the actual tasks to which he is assigned;

— infringement of Article 80(3) of the CEOS in the procedure
followed to select posts likely to be filled by contract staff
and to define the function groups to which those posts
would be assigned, in that that work was carried out by a
task force, the composition and method of operation of
which have not been disclosed and cannot be verified,
whereas the Staff Regulations require that the Staff Regula-
tions Committee be consulted;

— annul the Commission's decision of 11 February 2005 on
State aid N 260b/2004 — Germany — Extension of the
support programme on insulating material from renewable
raw materials (State aid N 694/2002 — Germany);

— order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant objects to the Commission's decision of 11
February 2005 in Case C(2005) 379 on State aid N 260/b/
2004 — Germany. In the contested decision the Commission
considered the extension of the support programme on insu-
lating material from renewable raw materials (State aid N 694/
2002) to be compatible with the EC Treaty.

17.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 229/27

The applicant claims that the contested decision infringes the
duty to state reasons laid down in Article 253 EC since no
reasons are given as to why the measure is clearly beneficial to
the environment. In addition, the applicant complains that the
contested decision does not address the arguments regarding
the original decision raised in the proceedings pending before
the Court of First Instance.

2. award default interest;

3. order the Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims furthermore that the contested decision
refers to an original decision which is invalid because it
infringes essential procedural requirements.

The applicant, further submits that, in considering the measure
to be clearly beneficial to the environment and thus compatible
with the common market in accordance with Article 87(3)(c)
EC, the Commission's decision is based on an inadequate estab-
lishment of the facts.

Finally, the applicant complains that the contested decision
discriminates against the insulating material referred to by the
Commission as ‘traditional’, in particular mineral fibre insula-
tion material, and also insulating material from renewable raw
materials which do not possess the natureplus quality mark,
without any objective reason. According to the applicant, the
decision thereby infringes the principle of proportionality and
the principle of non-discrimination and is thus contrary to
fundamental principles of Community law.

At the time the relevant facts arose, the applicant was an offi-
cial at the European Parliament. The European Parliament sent
a letter on 21 July 2004 informing her that 207 hours and 30
minutes would be deducted from her annual leave on account
of her absence on medical grounds from 28 May to 11 July
2004. The Parliament's decision was made as a result of the
findings of an examination of the applicant by an independent
doctor, in accordance with Article 59 of the Staff Regulations,
which indicated that the applicant was fit to return to her
duties. A subsequent claim by the applicant seeking the restitu-
tion of the financial and/or other value of the hours deducted
was also rejected by the Parliament.

In support of her application, the applicant claims the infringe-
ment of Article 59 of the Staff Regulations and the internal
rules of the Parliament on the ground that she was subjected to
an examination by an independent doctor without a prior
medical examination by the institution's medical officer. She
also claims the infringement of the duty to give a statement of
reasons, the rights of the defence and the principle ‘patere quam
ipse legem fecisti’.

Action brought on 1 July 2005 by Fernanda Ehrhardt-
Avancini against the European Parliament

Action brought on 30 June 2005 by Eric Voigt against the
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-256/05)

(2005/C 229/58)

(Language of the case: French)

(Case T-258/05)

(2005/C 229/59)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1
July 2005 by Fernanda Ehrhardt-Avancini, residing in Luxem-
bourg, represented by Georges Vandersanden, Laure Levi and
Chiara Ronzi, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. annul the Parliament's decision rejecting the claim for resti-
tution of the financial and/or other value of 207 hours 30
minutes which were deducted from her annual leave and
then from her salary/pension;

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 30 June 2005 by Eric Voigt,
residing in Orange (France), represented by Bernard Autric,
lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1. order the European Commission to accept his claim of
11.07.2002 for recognition of his illness as an occupational
disease;

2. order the Commission to pay interest from 28.05.2004;