Case T-164/07 P: Appeal brought on 14 May 2007 by Sundholm against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 1 March 2007 in Case F-30/05, Sundholm v Commission
Date: 2007-07-07
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, appeal, report, staff assessment

C 155/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.7.2007

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant maintains that it has suffered economic damage
because it was unable to import into the customs territory of
the Community products of Community origin resulting from
its business activities because of a series of unlawful acts and
conduct on the part of the Community institutions, that is to
say, of:

(a) the European Commission, on the ground that it adopted
Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 (1), which requires presenta-
tion of Community Customs Document T2M completed in
its entirety as the sole proof of origin of Community catches
substantiating the right to free movement;

(b) the European Commission, which conducted on behalf of
the Community the negotiations with Tunisia for setting up
the Association Agreement, and the Council of the Euro-
pean Union, which ratified that Agreement, on the ground
that they failed to ensure that catches of Community origin
resulting from Community fishing activities outside the
territorial waters of Tunisia would not be deprived of the
right to free movement;

In addition to the value of the compensation sought, the appli-
cant points out that the unusual and special character of the
harm it has sustained allows reparation of the above damage
and considers that the circumstances in this case warrant the
Community being held liable in the absence of fault.

(1) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying
down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993
L 253, p. 1).

Appeal brought on 14 May 2007 by Sundholm against the
the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on
judgment of

1 March 2007 in Case F-30/05, Sundholm v Commission

(Case T-164/07 P)

(2007/C 155/69)

Language of the case: French

(c) the European Commission and the Council of the European
Union, on the ground that although they are members of
the body competent to amend the Agreement, they failed, in
the applicant's view, to ensure that provision was made for
the above-mentioned specific
regulating the question of
category of
the
problem that had arisen;

fish, even though they were aware of

Parties

(d) the European Commission, on the ground that it omitted to
exercise the necessary supervision over the Greek authorities
as requested by the company.

Applicant: Asa Sundholm (Brussels, Belgium)
S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

(represented by

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Furthermore, the applicant maintains that the above acts and
omissions infringe higher-ranking rules of law which have been
laid down for the protection of individuals as follows:

Forms of order sought

(a) the right to free movement of goods,

in the exercise of
which administrative formalities are of a procedural not
substantive nature;

(b) the right of commercial freedom, the essence of which is
affected by the prohibition on alternative proof of origin;

(c) the principle of proportionality, which is not compatible
with the exclusion of any means of proof of origin other
than the T2M;

(d) the principle of protection of legitimate expectations since,
although the company conducted itself as a prudent
observer of the market, it suffered serious damage by reason
of the fact that it availed itself of its rights under Com-
munity law:

(e) the principle of effective legal protection, which is contrary
to the ‘denial of justice’ which the company encountered on
the part of the Greek, Tunisian and Community authorities.

— Annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second
Chamber) of 1 March 2007 in the Case F-30/05 (Sundholm v
Commission);

— Give judgment again, and annul the Commission decision
drawing up her Career Development Report for 2003 and
first
order
instance and on appeal.

to pay the costs incurred at

the defendant

Pleas in law and main arguments

By her appeal the applicant seeks to annul the judgment of the
Civil Service Tribunal dismissing the action in which she had
sought the annulment of her Career Development Report for
the period from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2003.

In support of her appeal, the applicant claims that the Civil
Service Tribunal erred in law in rejecting the plea alleging infrin-
gement of the rights of the defence.