Case T-356/05: Action brought on  19 September 2005  — Zelenkovà/Parliament
Date: 2005-11-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Parliament, European official, action by staff, personnel administration, regulations for civil servants

C 296/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.11.2005

The applicant seeks annulment of that decision, maintaining in
principle that the entire clearance of accounts procedure is
invalid because Article 7 of Regulation No 1258/1999 (3), in
conjunction with Article 8 of Regulation No 1663/1995 (4),
was infringed by reason of the fact that the consultation and
bilateral contacts between the applicant and the Commission
did not include the specific evaluation of the expenditure to be
refused, while in addition the expenditure excluded was effected
prior to the 24 months preceding the Commission's written
communication. According to the applicant, the period of 24
months
than the Commission
considers.

commences much later

As regards the correction in the public storage sector, the appli-
cant considers that the Commission's corrections are based on
a misinterpretation and misapplication of Regulations Nos
1258/1999, 296/1996 (5) and 2040/2000 (6), misconstruing
the guidelines in Commission document VI/5330/97/23.12.97,
and were made on the basis of a mistaken assessment of the
facts, with vague or insufficient reasoning, going beyond the
bounds of the Commission's discretion and contravening the
principle of proportionality.

misapplication of the guidance in document AGRI/6145/2000
and is disproportionate to the gravity of the deficiencies.

(1) OJ L 199 of 29.07.2005, p. 84.
(2) Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of the Council of 21 April 1970 on
the financing of the common agricultural policy, OJ English Special
Edition 1970(I), p 218.

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the
the common agricultural policy, OJ L 160 of

financing of
26.06.1999, p. 103.

(4) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying
down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC)
the
No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of
accounts of
the EAGGF Guarantee Section, OJ L 158 of
08.07.1995, p. 6.

(5) Commission Regulation (EC) No 296/96 of 16 February 1996 on
data to be forwarded by the Member States and the monthly
booking of expenditure financed under the Guarantee Section of the
Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and repealing
Regulation (EEC) No 2776/88, OJ 1996 L 39, p. 5.

(6) Council Regulation (EC) No 2040/2000 of 26 September 2000 on

budgetary discipline, OJ 2000 L 244, p. 27.

(7) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2848/98 of 22 December 1998
laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2075/92 as regards the premium scheme, production
quotas and the specific aid to be granted to producer groups in the
raw tobacco sector, OJ 1998 L 358, p. 17.

the

facts,

citing

insufficient

As regards the correction in the potato-growing and vineyard
sectors, the applicant disputes the Commission's assessment as
regards
contradictory
reasoning, and infringement of the principle of proportionality.
It considers, moreover, that the correction imposed should be
limited to 2 % and that the correction should not in any event
include the Department of the Dodecanese, where there is a
land registry and consequently in that department especially it
cannot be considered that there is any difficulty as regards on-
the-spot checks.

and

In the fruit and vegetables sector, the applicant considers that
the Commission was wrong not to regard as justified the late
payment in a case in which the Greek authorities investigated
the compatibility of the payment in question under national
and Community law. The applicant relies additionally on the
same pleas as were set out above concerning the storage sector.

With regard to tobacco, the applicant alleges misinterpretation
and misapplication of the Community provisions, error as to
the facts, insufficient statement of reasons and infringement of
the guidance in documents VI 5330/97 and AGRI 17933/2000
concerning the requirement to carry out cross-checks with the
data of a fully-functioning integrated administration and
control system provided for by Regulation No 2848/98 (7), the
carrying out of on-the-spot checks, of payments by cheque and
supplementary and other checks.

Lastly, as regards the correction in the livestock sector (goat
the Commission's
the applicant disputes
and sheepmeat),
assessment of the facts and considers that the reasons given are
mistaken. It also claims that the imposition of a flat-rate correc-
tion of 10 % is unlawful, constitutes a misinterpretation and

Action brought on 19 September 2005 — Zelenkovà/
Parliament

(Case T-356/05)

(2005/C 296/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant(s): Martina Zelenkovà (Brussels, Belgium) [represented
by: G. Vandersanden, L. Levi, C. Ronzi, lawyers]

Defendant(s): European Parliament

Form of order sought

— Give the applicant the benefit of her conclusions i.e. the
cancellation of the grading given in the 16 November 2004
recruitment decision of
the Appointing Authority (the
Parliament) which was to take effect on 1 December 2004
to grade the applicant at category A*, grade 5, step 2,
implying the reinstatement of all the applicant's rights as
deriving from a legal and regular employment, i.e. a legal
and regular grading as of 1 December 2004, which means
a former LA8 grading or its equivalent according to Articles
1-11 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulation (A*7, with the
relevant step according to the rules in force before 1 May
2004);

26.11.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/33

— the award (i) of damages with ‘intérêts de retard’, as compen-
sation for the prejudice to the applicant's career, and (ii)
other damages in form of a legal and regular pay, notably
the application of the transitional provision contained in
Article 21 of Annex XIII of the Staff Regulation in force as
of 1 May 2004 or, alternatively, the lowering of contribu-
tions to the pension scheme based on the principle of equal
pay. These rights will have to be duly evaluated at a later
stage and are now evaluated, provisionally and ex aequo et
bono, at a minimum of EUR 5 000 per year;

— order that the European Parliament shall pay all costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, an official appointed after the entry into force of
the new Staff Regulations on 1 May 2004, but from a reserve
list drawn up on the basis of a competition organised before
that date, contests her appointment grade, fixed by the Parlia-
ment in accordance with the new regulations at A*5. She
invokes the same pleas and arguments invoked by the appli-
cants in Case T-58/05 (1).

(1) OJ C 93, 16/04/05, p. 38

financial damage, and must therefore be ordered to pay to the
applicant:

(a) compensation of EUR 701 692,77 by way of indemnifying
the damage consisting of failure to obtain the first part of
the aid;

(b) compensation of EUR 701 692,77 by way of indemnifying
the damage consisting of failure to obtain the second part
of the aid;

(c) compensation of EUR 701 692,77 by way of indemnifying
the damage consisting of failure to obtain the third part of
the aid;

(d) interest on those sums as revalued;

(e) EUR 1 453 387,03, or whatever greater or lesser sum may
be determined — possibly in agreement with the Commis-
sion — during the proceedings, as compensation for the
loss of income in the normal management of the under-
taking in the financial year ending 30 June 2002 compared
with the income it would have had if
the investment
programme had been completed;

(f) interest on the sum under (e) as revalued;

(g) the costs of the proceedings, including those of the party's

technical consultancy.

Action brought on 21 September 2005 — Nuovo Agricast
v Commission of the European Communities

Pleas in law and main arguments

(Case T-362/05)

(2005/C 296/69)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant(s): Nuovo Agricast s.r.l. (Cerignola, Italy) (represented
by Michele Arcangelo Calabrese)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims, subject to all procedural reservations, that
the Court should declare that, by having acted unlawfully as set
out in the application, the Commission has seriously and mani-
festly infringed Community law, and has caused the applicant

The applicant in this case, as in Cases T-139/03 (1), T-151/
03 (2) and T-98/04 (3), charges the Commission with having
acted unlawfully in the preliminary investigation in respect of
State aid N 715/99, the result of which was a decision to grant
authorisation without objections. That authorisation extended,
for the six-year period 2000-2006,
the State aid scheme
referred to by Law No 488/92, which had previously in 1997
been authorised until 31 December 1999.

It is in this regard to be borne in mind that in accordance with
the special administrative procedure for the obtaining of aid
the Italian Government ought every six months to have issued
invitations to tender,
in which the undertakings concerned
might have taken part. The financial resources used to fund the
tender procedure would have been allocated to the undertak-
ings in order of classification until exhausted. Having taken
part in the third tender procedure, the applicant could not
obtain aid because the resources intended for funding of its
classification level had been exhausted.

The Italian Government, in proposing the investigation into aid
No 715/99, asked the Commission to agree, in the first tender
to the reformulation of
procedure under the new scheme,
applications submitted under the third and fourth notices to
tender. The Commission, however, restricted its authorisation
to the fourth invitation to tender.