Case T-228/07: Action brought on 29 June 2007 — Malheiro v Commission
Date: 2007-09-08
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: action by staff, action for annulment (EU), equal pay, equal treatment, gender equality, indemnification, labour mobility, residence

C 211/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.9.2007

Forms of order sought

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

— declare void Commission Decision 2007/243/EC of 18 April
2007 excluding from Community financing certain expendi-
ture incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee
Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guar-
antee Fund (EAGGF), in so far as it forms the subject-matter
of the present action and,

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Kingdom of Spain disputes the contested decision in so far
as it provides for a financial correction of the costs incurred in
the context of production aid for products processed from
tomatoes in the financial years 2003 and 2004, in the amount
of EUR 4 090 316,46.

In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:

— infringement

3
2

729/70 (1)

of Articles
and

and
2
of Article

of Regulation
No
Regulation
of
No 1258/1999 (2) given the non-existence of the irregulari-
ties relied on by the Commission relating, in particular, to
the checks of primary materials at the delivery points, that is
to say, the absence of nightly checks by the inspectors of the
Extremadura Autonomous Community,
failure to retain
proof of weighing, and ‘en masse’ signature of delivery
notes;

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision adopted by the European Commission,
Director-General of Personnel
and Administration on
30 April 2007, rejecting complaint No R/6/07, registered on
8 January 2007, seeking annulment of the decision by the
European Commission's DG ADMIN not to grant her allow-
ances other than the reduced daily subsistence allowance of
EUR 28.78;

— order that the defendant pay the applicant, for the period of
16 November 2006 until 31 October 2008, the full daily
subsistence allowance of EUR 115.09 provided for by the
Commission Decision laying down rules on the secondment
of national experts to the Commission (C(2006) 2003) of
1 June 2006 less the amount of the daily subsistence allow-
ances already received by the applicant, plus an additional
monthly allowance of EUR 542.55;

— order

that

the defendant
incurred removal expenses;

reimburse the applicant her

— in the alternative, breach of the principle of proportionality,
given that the Commission decided to impose a financial
correction on the entire quantity of tomatoes delivered, even
though the actual
irregularity on which the correction is
based would concern only those quantities delivered at
night, which means that the corrections could have been
applied only to those quantities.

— order the defendant to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

(1) Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 of the Council of 21 April 1970 on the
the common agricultural policy (OJ English Special

financing of
Edition 1970 (I), p. 218).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the
financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ L, 26.6.1999, 160,
p. 103).

Action brought on 29 June 2007 — Malheiro v
Commission

(Case T-228/07)

(2007/C 211/73)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ana Malheiro (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C.
Ebrecht, lawyer)

The applicant, who is working as a seconded national expert for
the Commission, wishes to receive i) full daily subsistence allow-
ance instead of the reduced daily subsistence allowance granted
by the Commission, and ii) a further monthly allowance instead
of removal expenses.

In support of her application, the applicant firstly submits that
the Commission committed an error of assessment since it
deemed the applicant's residence to be in Brussels because her
husband has his residence there. The applicant submits that her
stay in Brussels is only of a temporary character and that she is
to the same extent as any other seconded national expert
exposed to the same inconveniences and disadvantages resulting
in the temporary nature of the secondment.

the

that

alleges

applicant

Furthermore,
the Commission
infringed the principle of equal treatment and Article 20 of the
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union since
Article 20(3)(b) of the Commission's decision laying down the
rules on the secondment of national experts to the Commission
experts
discriminates
against married
compared to unmarried seconded national
living
together with someone in a relationship.

seconded national

experts

8.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/39

Moreover, the applicant contends that this discrimination as
well as the, in comparison with the applicant's allowance, higher
allowance given to unmarried male seconded national experts
(whether living in a relationship or not) leads to an infringement
of Article 141 EC and the principle of equal pay for men and
women as well as of Directive 2000/78/EC (1) and of the prin-
ciple of proportionality.

(1) Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a
general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupa-
tion (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).

on

brought

Appeal
by Maddalena
Lebedef-Caponi against the judgment of the Civil Service
Tribunal delivered on 25 April 2007 in Case F-71/06
Lebedef-Caponi v Commission

2007

July

5

In support of her appeal, the applicant submits that the Civil
Service Tribunal has made errors of interpretation and assess-
ment of the facts which led it to hold that the critical assess-
ment of the applicant in the contested CDR was well-founded.

Action brought on 3 July 2007 — Koninklijke Grolsch v
Commission

(Case T-234/07)

(2007/C 211/75)

Language of the case: Dutch

(Case T-233/07 P)

(2007/C 211/74)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Koninklijke Grolsch NV (represented by: M.B.W.
Biesheuvel and J.K. de Pree, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Parties

Form of order sought

Appellant: Maddalena Lebedef-Caponi
Duchy of Luxembourg) (represented by F. Frabetti, lawyer)

(Senningerberg, Grand

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Form of order sought by the appellant

— set aside in whole or in part the decision addressed to
Grolsch, and in any event set aside that decision to the
extent to which it is addressed to Grolsch;

— set aside or, in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on

Grolsch;

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

— Annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 25 April

Pleas in law and main arguments

2007 in case F-71/06;

— Grant the form of order sought by the applicant at first
in Case

instance and, consequently, declare the appeal
F-71/06 admissible and well-founded;

— Alternatively,
Tribunal;

refer

the case back to the Civil Service

— Make an order as to the costs, expenses and fees and order

the Commission to pay them.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In her appeal, the applicant seeks the annulment of the judg-
ment of the Civil Service Tribunal dismissing the action by
which she sought the annulment of her Career Development
Report (CDR) for the period 1.1.2004-31.12.2004.

The applicant challenges the Commission decision of 18 April
2007 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC (Case
No COMP/B-2/37.766 — Netherlands beer market), by which a
fine was imposed on the applicant.

In support of its action the applicant puts forward three proce-
dural heads of complaint. First, it argues that the proceedings
were unreasonably lengthy, and that this amounted to an infrin-
gement of the principle that proceedings should be conducted
within a reasonable period of time. Second, Grolsch submits
that its rights of defence were infringed inasmuch as it was
refused access to the other parties' replies to the statement of
objection. Third, it claims that the principles of sound adminis-
tration, including the principles of the duty of care and of the
innocence, were infringed inasmuch as the
presumption of
Commission did not act impartially during the investigation,
failed to take account of exonerating material, and conducted
the investigation in an incomplete or negligent manner.