Case T-166/08: Action brought on 6 May 2008 — Ivanov v Commission
Date: 2008-05-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), damages, discrimination on the basis of nationality, equal treatment, recruitment

19.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/23

arbitration clause contained in a contract concluded by or on
behalf of the Community, to Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC)
No 1406/2002 providing that the Agency shall be a body of
the Community, and to Article 225 EC providing that the Court
of Fist Instance shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine at
first instance actions or proceedings referred to in Article 238 EC.

— refer the case back to the CST;

— reserve the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Moreover, the applicant submits that it seeks confirmation by
the Court that the Seat Agreement is an instrument of interna-
tional law within the sphere of Community law that binds the
Portuguese authorities and that cannot be unilaterally modified.
It further applies for a judgment concluding that the processing
of applications for motor vehicle registrations by its staff
members is in contradiction to the provisions of the Protocol
and that the Portuguese authorities are obliged to implement
the relevant provisions of
the Protocol within a reasonable
period of time. Finally, it claims that the Seat Agreement shall
not be interpreted in a way that the staff of the EMSA does not
enjoy at least the rights, with regards to vehicle registration, of
any EU national transferring its residence to Portugal.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1406/2002 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 27 June 2002 establishing a European Maritime
Safety Agency (OJ 2002 L 208, p. 1).

(2) Published in the Portuguese Official Journal No 224 of 22 September
2004, p. 6073, available on the EMSA's website http://www.emsa.
europa.eu/Docs/legis/protocol%20pt%20government%20and%
20emsa.pdf

Appeal brought on 5 May 2008 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the judgment of the
Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 21 February 2008 in
Case F-31/07, Putterie-De-Beukelaer v Commission

(Case T-160/08 P)

(2008/C 183/45)

Language of the case: French

Parties

By this appeal, the Commission requests that the judgment
of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 21 February 2008 in Case
F-31/07 Putterie-De-Beukelaer v Commission,
in which the CST
annulled Ms Putterie-De-Beukelaer's Career Development Report
concerning the period from 1 January 2005 to 31 December
2005, be set aside in so far as that report does not acknowledge
her potential to carry out duties in category B*.

In support of its appeal, the Commission relies on a single plea
in law, alleging, first, infringement by the CST of the principles
relating to the scope of the review exercised by the Community
judicature of its own motion and, second, infringement of the
prohibition on adjudicating ultra petita.

The Commission submits that the CST was not entitled to raise
of its own motion a plea concerning the substantive legality of
the contested act alleging infringement of the respective scope
the
of Article 43 of
European Communities and Article 10(3) of Annex XIII
to
those regulations, since substantive pleas are not an absolute bar
to proceeding with an action.

the Staff Regulations of Officials of

In the alternative, the Commission claims that, in so far as para-
graphs 75 and 76 of
the judgment under appeal could be
considered separable from the plea alleging the substantive
legality of the contested measure and be categorised as a sepa-
rate plea alleging that the author of the contested act exceeded
its power, the CST infringed the Commission's rights of defence,
since the latter was not heard on that point in accordance with
Article 77 of the Rules of Procedure of the CST.

Action brought on 6 May 2008 — Ivanov v Commission

(Case T-166/08)

(2008/C 183/46)

Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and K. Herrmann, Agents)

Language of the case: French

Other party to the proceedings: Françoise Putterie-De-Beukelaer
(Brussels, Belgium)

Parties

Form of order sought by the appellant

Applicant: Vladimir Ivanov (Boulogne Billancourt, France) (repre-
sented by: F. Rollinger, lawyer)

— set aside the judgement under appeal;

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

C 183/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.7.2008

Form of order sought

Action brought on 13 May 2008 — DEI v Commission

— Declare that the Commission is liable for infringement of
the principles of transparency, proper administration, non-
discrimination and equal treatment in connection with the
recruitment procedure which took place following the
vacancy notice for a post as a ‘Pre-enlargement Adviser and
Political Rapporteur’ based in Sofia, in May 2003;

— Order the Commission to make good, on the basis of the
second paragraph of Article 288 of the Treaty establishing
the European Community, the damage which it caused to
the applicant;

— Accordingly, order the Commission to pay to the applicant
the amount of EUR 180 000 as damages for the loss
sustained;

— Order the Commission to pay the amount of EUR 10 000
in respect of non-material damage sustained by the appli-
cant;

— Order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs and expenses.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In 2003, the applicant applied for a local member of staff's post
as a ‘Pre-enlargement Adviser’
in Sofia. His application was
rejected at the preliminary selection stage on account of his dual
Franco-Bulgarian nationality as only candidates who had the
nationality of a Member State were eligible for the vacant post.

During the recruitment procedure and after the rejection of his
application, the applicant unsuccessfully requested more infor-
mation regarding the procedure and the reasons for the rejec-
tion of his application. He then brought the matter before the
European Ombudsman, who concluded that there had been
maladministration and infringement of the principle of non-
discrimination or of equal treatment on the part of the Commis-
sion.

By the present action, the applicant requests that the Court of
First Instance declare that the Commission is non-contractually
liable for infringement of the principles of transparency, proper
administration, non-discrimination and equal
in
connection with the recruitment procedure in question.

treatment

(Case T-169/08)

(2008/C 183/47)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Dimosia Epikhirisi Ilektrismou A.E. (Athens, Greece)
(represented by: P. Anestis, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action, the applicant seeks the annulment of Commis-
sion Decision C(2008) 824 final of 5 March 2008 relating to
the grant or retention in force by the Hellenic Republic of rights
lignite in favour of Dimosia Epikhirisi
for
Ilektrismou (Public Power Corporation).

the mining of

The applicant puts forward the following pleas for annulment.

The applicant submits, first, that the defendant erred in law
when applying Article 86(1)
EC in conjunction with
Article 82 EC, and made a manifest error of assessment.

Specifically, according to the applicant
the defendant erred
(i) with regard to the definition of the relevant markets; (ii) with
regard to application of the theory of extension of a dominant
position, since it did not take into account that, even in the case
of public undertakings, the extension must be based on State
measures that grant exclusive or special rights; (iii) because the
Greek legislation on the basis of which the applicant acquired
rights in respect of the exploitation of lignite does not lead to a
situation of unequal opportunity to the detriment of competi-
tors; (iv) since the aforementioned legislation does not lead to
the maintenance or strengthening of the applicant's dominant
position in the wholesale electricity market; and (v) by reason of
a manifest error of assessment in not taking into account the
recent developments in the Greek electrical energy market inas-
much as they were important for proving the absence of an
infringement.

Under the second plea for annulment, the applicant submits
that,
in issuing the contested decision, the defendant did not
comply with the rules laid down by Article 253 EC that govern
the statement of reasons.