Case T-301/05: Action brought on 2 August 2005 — Philippe Guigard v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2005-10-29
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action by staff, fourth Lomé Convention, personnel administration

29.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 271/19

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

Communication

(2005/C 271/37)

On 6 October 2005, Mr Hans Jung, Registrar of the Court of
First Instance, left office and Mr Emmanuel Coulon, appointed
Registrar of the Court of First Instance by decision of that
Court of 5 July 2005 taken pursuant to the fourth paragraph
of Article 224 of the EC Treaty, the fourth paragraph of Article
14 of the EAEC Treaty, and Articles 20 and 7(3) of the Rules
of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, took the oath and
assumed office for a period of six years up to 5 October 2011.

Action brought on 21 July 2005 — Republic of Cyprus v
Commission

(Case T-300/05)

(2005/C 271/38)

Language of the case: Greek

adoption of measures beneficial to the new Member States is
permitted. In the applicant's submission, however, the measures
adopted by the new regulation do not benefit the new Member
States but, on the contrary, are a burden to them.

In the same context, the applicant pleads that the reasons
stated are inadequate, because it is not explained in a satisfac-
tory manner what grounds led to the adoption of the contested
regulation. The applicant further pleads breach of the principle
of proportionality inasmuch as, in its view, the Commission
has not demonstrated that the adoption of any measure at all
was necessary while, in any event, the Commission could have
adopted other measures to avoid the creation of sugar surpluses
in the new Member States without having to adopt measures
such as those contained in the contested regulation.

In addition, the applicant submits that the contested regulation
infringes the principle prohibiting retroactive legislation, since
it imposes obligations which relate to quantities which had
already accumulated before its entry into force.

that

submits

the applicant

Finally,
the Commission has
infringed the principle of equal treatment and the prohibition
of discrimination because, it maintains, the contested regulation
provides for different treatment between undertakings of the
new Member States and those of the old Member States in rela-
tion to the consequences of a similar, if not identical, situation.

Parties

Applicant(s): Republic of Cyprus (represented by: Petros Kliridis)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 651/2005 of 28 April 2005
amending Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 laying down transitional
measures in the sugar sector by reason of the accession of the
Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta,
Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ No L 108, 29.4.2005, p. 3).

(2) OJ No L 9, 15.1.2004, p. 8.

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

— annul Regulation No 651/2005; (1)

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested regulation amends Regulation No 60/2004 (2)
laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector by reason
of the accession of the new Member States. The applicant seeks
its annulment, pleading first of all that the Commission lacked
the power to adopt it. Specifically, the applicant submits that,
under Article 41 of the 2003 Act of Accession, the Commis-
transitional measures if such
sion is empowered to adopt
measures are necessary to facilitate the transition from the
regime which applied before the accession of the new Member
States to the regime resulting from the application of
the
in the applicant's
common agricultural policy. However,
the
establish that
the Commission did not
submission,
measures which it adopted were necessary and therefore it
lacked the power to adopt them. The applicant also pleads that
Article 41 of the Act of Accession clearly implies that only the

Action brought on 2 August 2005 — Philippe Guigard v
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-301/05)

(2005/C 271/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s): Philippe Guigard (Paris, France) (represented by: S.
Rodrigues and A. Jaume, lawyers)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

C 271/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.10.2005

Form of order sought

Action brought on 1 August 2005 — Balabanis and Le
Dour v Commission

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

— hold that the European Community is non-contractually
liable in respect of the unlawful conduct of the Commission
in irregular circum-
following the Commission's failure,
stances, to renew the contract of employment between it
and the applicant;

(Case T-305/05)

(2005/C 271/40)

Language of the case: French

— order

the defendant

to pay damages and interest

in
compensation for both the applicant's professional loss (of
an initial indicative amount of EUR 350 000) and his non-
material loss (in an amount left to the fair and just assess-
ment of the Court);

— order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action seeks compensation for the loss allegedly
suffered by the applicant because of the Commission's failure,
in circumstances which the applicant considers irregular, to
renew the contract of employment which he had concluded
with the defendant in the context of technical cooperation
between the European Community and the Government of
Niger.

It should be noted in that regard that the applicant is an expert
on the EuropAid list who, since 1992, has carried out a
number of tasks as a contractual employee of the Commission.
On 7 March 2002, he signed a contract of employment with
the Commission for twelve months as a technical assistant with
the Ministry for Equipment and Transport in Niamey. The task
proceeded satisfactorily. The renewal of that contract was the
subject of an official enquiry by the Ministry in its capacity as
national authorising officer of the European Development Fund
(EDF).

In support of his claims, the applicant submits, firstly, that
there has been an infringement of the IV Lomé Convention, in
that
the Commission did not comply with the division of
powers between the national authorising officer and the Head
of the Delegation, the latter not being able to oppose the
renewal of the contract, since Article 313.2(k) of the Conven-
tion gives sole jurisdiction to the national authorising officer of
the EDF in matters of recruitment of experts in technical assis-
tance, the only obligation being to inform the Head of the
the
Delegation thereof. Furthermore, and in any event,
Commission did not comply with the obligatory time-limit of
30 days laid down in Article 314 of the Convention within
which it was to reply to the national authorising officer's
request concerning the renewal of the contract.

Parties

Applicant(s): Panagiotis Balabanis (Brussels, Belgium), Olivier Le
Dour (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: X. Martin, S. Orlandi,
A. Coolen, J.-N Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

— annul the Commission's decision not to take account of the
applicants' merits for the 2004 promotion exercise and the
decisions not to promote them to a higher grade in their
category;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In this case the applicants, who were appointed probationary
officials on 16 March 2002 and who, in accordance with the
new wording of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, completed
the minimum of two years in their grade as from 16 March
to
2004,
consider them as eligible for the 2004 promotion exercise and
to promote them to a higher grade in their category for the
same exercise.

the Appointing Authority's

thus contest

refusal

In support of their claims the applicants assert that Article 45
of the Staff Regulations has been infringed. In accordance with
that new provision the probationary period must be taken into
account for the purpose of calculating the minimum seniority
in grade.

Action brought on 10 August 2005 — Scippacercola and
Terezakis/Commission

(Case T-306/05)

(2005/C 271/41)

Language of the case: English

Finally, the applicant claims that there was an infringement of
the principles of sound administration, of the duty of care and
of the protection of legitimate expectations.

Parties

Applicant(s):
(Brussels, Belgium) [represented by: A. Krystallidis, lawyer]

Isabella Scippacercola

and Ioannis Terezakis

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities