Case T-431/05: Action brought on  5 December 2005  — Cerafogli and Poloni v ECB
Date: 2006-02-25
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Central Bank, European official, action by staff, pay rise, personnel administration, remuneration of work

C 48/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.2.2006

Action brought on 7 December 2005 — Artegodan v
Commission

(Case T-429/05)

(2006/C 48/74)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Artegodan GmbH (Lüchow, Germany) (represented
by: U. Doepner, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Forms of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

In the reasons given in its action the applicant submits that, by
reason of Decision C(2000) 453, the Commission acted unlaw-
fully and thereby infringed various provisions
serving to
protect the applicant. The applicant claims that its basic right
to carry on the business which it established (company and
property rights) was infringed. In addition, it alleges infringe-
ment of Article 11 of Directive 65/65/EEC. (2) Furthermore, the
applicant claims that the Commission infringed the principle of
proportionality and the basic principles of sound administra-
tion.

The applicant submits that it suffered harm as a result of the
decision in question and
implementation thereof.
According to the applicant, the defendant should pay to it
compensation in regards of the infringements identified above.

the

(1) Second Council Directive 75/319/EEC of 20 May 1975 on the
approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or admin-
istrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products.

(2) Council Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approxima-
tion of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative
action relating to proprietary medicinal products.

— Order the defendant

to pay the applicant

the sum of
EUR 1 430 821,36 plus a lump-sum interest payment of
8 % for the period from the date of the judgment to that of
full payment of the sum due;

— Declare that

the defendant

is under an obligation to
compensate the applicant for all future damage which it
will
incur as a result of marketing expenses which are
necessary to re-establish the market position which the
pharmaceutical product Tenuate retard enjoyed before the
defendant withdrew the authorisation for that product;

— Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks compensation from the Commission under
the second paragraph of Article 288 EC and Article 235 EC
and a declaration that the defendant is under an obligation to
compensate the applicant for all future damage which it will
incur as a result of marketing expenses.

In relation to the background to the dispute,
it should be
pointed out that the applicant is the proprietor of the legal
rights of the authorisation for the pharmaceutical preparation
Tenuate retard, which contains amfepramone. On 9 March
2000, the defendant adopted, on the basis of Article 15a of
Directive 75/319/EEC, (1) Decision C(2000) 453 concerning the
withdrawal of marketing authorisations of medicinal products
for human use containing ‘amfepramone’. By decision of 11
April 2000, the competent German authorities implemented
that latter Commission decision. By judgment of 26 November
2002 in Joined Cases T-74/00, T-76/00, T-83/00 to T-85/00,
T-132/00, T-137/00 and T-141/00 the Court of First Instance
declared Commission Decision C(2000) 453 invalid. The
appeal lodged by the Commission against that judgment was
dismissed by the judgment of the Court of Justice of the Euro-
pean Communities in Case C-39/03 P.

Action brought on 5 December 2005 — Cerafogli and
Poloni v ECB

(Case T-431/05)

(2006/C 48/75)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Maria Concetta Cerafogli
Germany) and Paolo Poloni
(represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

(Frankfurt am Main,
(Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul the applicants' pay slips of February 2005 as replaced
in May 2005 and the defendant's letter of 15 February
2005;

25.2.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/39

— to the extent necessary, annul the decisions rejecting the
applications for an administrative review (decisions of 17
May 2005) and grievances under the grievance procedure
(decisions of 26 September 2005);

in respect of

— order the defendant to pay compensation for the damage
suffered by the applicants, consisting in the payment of
EUR 5 000 to each applicant
loss of
purchasing power since 1 July 2001, arrears of remunera-
tion corresponding to an increase in salary and all the
applicants' associated rights of 0.3 % from 1 July 2001 and
0.6 % from 1 July 2003, and interest on the said arrears
from the respective due dates until the date of payment.
The interest rate must be the rate fixed by the European
Central Bank for principal refinancing operations applicable
for the period in question, increased by two points;

Action brought on 15 December 2005 — Brink's Security
Luxembourg v Commission

(Case T-437/05)

(2006/C 48/76)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s): Brink's Security Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg)
(represented by: Christian Point, Lawyer)

— order the defendant to pay the entirety of the costs.

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Pleas in law and main arguments

the Court of First

In Case T-63/02, brought by the same applicants, staff of the
European Central Bank (ECB),
Instance
annulled the decisions contained in the salary statements sent
on 13 July 2001 to the applicants, for July 2001, as the ECB
did not consult the Staff Committee at the time of the adoption
of the salary adjustment for 2001. In consequence of that judg-
ment, the ECB consulted the Staff Committee concerning the
salary adjustments for the period 2001-2003, and a salary
increase for all staff from 1 July 2004. Moreover, it produced,
in February 2005, new pay slips for the applicants replacing
those of July 2001, which were annulled by the Court of First
Instance.

The applicants claim first of all that, by refusing to apply to
them retrospectively from July 2001 the correction linked to
the salary adjustment for 2001, the ECB infringed Article 233
EC, and the principle of res judicata with regard to the judg-
ment given on 20 November 2003 in Case T-63/02.

Moreover, they claim the infringement of Articles 45 and 46 of
the Conditions of Employment for Staff of the ECB, of the
Memorandum of Understanding on relations between the ECB's
managing bodies and the Staff Committee, of the principles of
good administration and non-discrimination and of the obliga-
tion of good faith.

Finally,
allegedly caused by the ECB's conduct.

the applicants claim compensation for the damage

Form of order sought

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

— declare the present action admissible and well-founded;

— annul the decision not to award the contract, that is, the
Commission's unilateral decision not to award the contract
to Brink's Security Luxembourg;

— annul

the decision to award the contract,

the
Commission's unilateral decision to award the contract to
Group 4 Falck Luxembourg;

that

is,

— annul the implicit decision of the Commission to refuse to

withdraw its two aforementioned decisions;

— annul the Commission's two letters dated respectively 7 and
14 December 2005 replying to the applicant's requests for
information pursuant to Article 149(3) of the regulation
implementing the Financial Regulation;

— order the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum of
EUR 1 000 000 by way of damages for the material and
non-material harm suffered by reason of the illegality of the
decision challenged, that sum being determined ex aequo et
bono and on a provisional basis;

— order the Commission to pay the entire costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present application seeks, firstly, the annulment of the
Commission's decision rejecting the tender submitted by the
applicant in call for tenders No 16/2005/OIL (provision of
building surveillance and security services) and, secondly, the
annulment of the decision awarding the contract to a compe-
titor.

The arguments relied on by the applicant in support of the
orders for annulment sought can be categorised, in substance,
into seven pleas.