CELEX: C1999/314/26
Language: en
Date: 1999-10-30 00:00:00
Title: Case T-191/99: Action brought on 25 August 1999 by David Petrie, Victoria Jane Primhak, David Verzoni and A.L.L.S.I. (Associazione Lettori di Lingua Straniera in Italia) against the Commission of the European Communities

30.10.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 314/11
Action brought on 20 August 1999 by Euroalliages against                   Action brought on 25 August 1999 by David Petrie,
        the Commission of the European Communities                         Victoria Jane Primhak, David Verzoni and A.L.L.S.I. (Asso-
                                                                           ciazione Lettori di Lingua Straniera in Italia) against the
                          (Case T-188/99)                                           Commission of the European Communities
                          (1999/C 314/25)                                                           (Case T-191/99)
                     (Language of the case: French)                                                 (1999/C 314/26)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on                                        (Language of the case: Italian)
20 August 1999 by Euroalliages (Comité de Liaison des
Industries de Ferro-Alliages), an association established in
Brussels, represented by Dominique Voillemot and Olivier
                                                                           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Prost, of the Paris Bar.
                                                                           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                           European Communities on 25 August 1999 by David Petrie,
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:              Victoria Jane Primhak, David Verzoni and A.L.L.S.I. (Associa-
                                                                           zione Lettori di Lingua Straniera in Italia), with Professor
— annul the sole article of the Commission’s decision of                   Lorenzo Picotti and Claude Medernach, of the Verona and
      4 June 1999 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding                  Luxembourg Bars, with an address for service in Luxembourg
      concerning imports of ferro-silicon originating in Egypt             at the latter’s Chambers, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
      and Poland;
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            — annul the European Commission’s refusal or failure
                                                                                — evident both from the letters of 3 May 1999 and 20 July
By the contested decision of 4 June 1999, the Commission                        1999, and from its neglectful conduct — to recognise the
declared that the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports                    applicants’ right of access to documents in its possession
of ferro-silicon falling within CN codes 7202 21 10,                            relating to the infringement procedure under Article 169
7202 21 90 and 7202 29 90 originating in Egypt and Poland                       of the EEC Treaty concerning the Italian Republic
was terminated.                                                                 (No 96/2208); and, in particular, annul the Commission’s
                                                                                decision of 20 July 1999, together with all other entailed
                                                                                or related measures or actions and as a consequence order
That decision had already been the subject of an initial                        the Commission to allow such access and to pay the costs
publication under number 1999/366/EC (1). Three days later,                     of the proceedings.
it was stated that that initial publication was ‘to be considered
void’ (2).
The contested decision was then published anew under number                Pleas in law and main arguments
1999/426/EC (3) and notified to the applicant.
The applicant considers:                                                   The applicants take issue with the Commission’s refusal of
                                                                           access to documents in its possession relating to the infringe-
— that that decision disregards the arguments which it                     ment procedure under Article 226 of the EEC Treaty concern-
      submitted in writing and orally to the Commission in                 ing the discriminatory character of the Italian legislation
      opposition to that termination; and                                  serving as the basis for the recruitment of university language
                                                                           assistants of foreign mother tongue — in particular, of
— that, in adopting that decision, the Commission committed                Article 28 of DPR 382/80 — and of the rules applying to
      a manifest error of assessment as regards the likelihood of          temporary teaching posts.
      a recurrence of injury within the meaning of Article 11(2)
      of the basic regulation (4).
                                                                           The contested decision is based on two different grounds. In
( 1) OJ L 142 of 5.6.1999, p. 36.
                                                                           respect of one group of documents, the pretext for refusing
(2) OJ L 144 of 9.6.1999, p. 37.                                           access was the fact that, whereas the code of conduct adopted
(3) OJ L 166 of 1.7.1999, p. 91.                                           by the Commission in 1994 refers solely to ‘own’ documents,
(4) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on               the documents requested were for internal circulation within
     protection against dumped imports from countries not members          the Italian administration. As regards the second group of
     of the European Community (OJ L 56 of 6.3.1996, p. 1).                documents, on the other hand, the Commission dismissed the
                                                                           possibility of access on grounds of protection of the public
                                                                           interest, since they concern the infringement procedure
                                                                           initiated in respect of Italy.
 ---pagebreak--- C 314/12              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    30.10.1999
In support of the forms of order sought, the applicants allege:         — in the alternative, to annul the said decision purportedly
                                                                            taken by the Management Committee;
— infringement of Article 253 (formerly Article 190) and
    Article 255 (formerly Article 191a) of the EC Treaty, as
    amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam;                                 — further or in the alternative, to annul the decision taken by
                                                                            the Board of Directors of the European Investment Bank
                                                                            on 23 February 1999;
— breach of the code of conduct of 6 December 1993,
    adopted by Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Eura-
    tom, on public access to Commission documents; and                  — further to annul the payslips issued to the applicants in
                                                                            respect of their remuneration for the month of January
— breach of the principles of logical coherence, rationality                1999 and for successive months;
    and proper balancing of interests, which must direct the
    exercise of any discretion conferred upon the Commission
    in such matters.                                                    — to order the payment to the applicants by the Bank, with
                                                                            interest, of the difference between the amounts which the
                                                                            applicants have received by way of remuneration since
The above code of conduct refers, when stating general                      1 January 1999, and the amounts which they would have
principles, to ‘Commission and Council documents’, and                      received if the ‘special conversion rate’ had been applied;
defines ‘document’ as ‘any written text ... which ... is held by
the Commission or the Council’. However, a decision such as
the contested decision does not meet the requirement of                 — order the payment by the Bank of the applicants’ costs of
transparency laid down by the Treaty of Amsterdam. Lastly,                  these proceedings.
according to the applicants, it does not appear that any of the
documents relating to the procedure under Article 226 of the
Treaty is covered by the exemption based or public law. In any
event, the exemption does not operate on the basis of
indiscriminate blanket coverage, but requires a specific state-         Pleas in law and main arguments
ment of reasons in respect of each individual document.
                                                                        The dispute which is the subject of these proceedings relates
                                                                        to action taken by the European Investment Bank in connec-
                                                                        tion with the introduction, as from 1 January 1999, of the
                                                                        euro as a single currency in 11 out of the 15 Member States of
                                                                        the European Union. Like the other institutions and bodies of
                                                                        the European Union, the Bank has chosen to replace the
                                                                        Belgian and Luxembourg franc (BEF/LUF) with the euro as the
Action brought on 31 August 1999 by Roderick Dunnett,                   currency in which, from January 1999, the remuneration and
Thomas Hackett, and Mateo Turró Calvet against the                     pensions of its staff are to be expressed and calculated. The
                 European Investment Bank                               impact of the change of the purchasing power of the officials
                                                                        of those other institutions and bodies is intended to be entirely
                                                                        neutral. That is in contrast to the position in which, as
                        (Case T-192/99)
                                                                        from January 1999, members of the staff of the Bank find
                                                                        themselves. Some of them have suffered a significant loss of
                        (1999/C 314/27)                                 purchasing power, as compared with their position in Decem-
                                                                        ber 1998, owing to the discontinuation of the mechanism
                                                                        known as the ‘special conversion rate’, which has been applied
                  (Language of the case: English)                       by the Bank since 1982 in respect of the portion of an
                                                                        individual’s remuneration payable in a currency other than
                                                                        BEF/LUF.
An action against the European Investment Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 31 August 1999 by Roderick Dunnett, Thomas Hackett                   There appears to be no formal text of a decision of the
and Mateo Turró Calvet, represented by Professor A.A. Dash-            Management Committee abolishing this mechanism. The only
wood and Wendy Outhwaite, with an address for service in                trace of such a decision can be found in some documents
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arsène Kronshagen, 22 rue                 that refer to the adoption of a decision by the so-called
Marie Adelaïde.                                                         ‘non-opposition procedure’, which was concluded on 11 June
                                                                        1998. At its meeting of 23 February 1999, the Board of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Directors purported to confirm the Management Committee’s
                                                                        Decision to abolish the mechanism. The payslips of the
— declare that the internal note to the Management Com-                 applicants for the month of January 1999 show that the
    mittee of the European Investment Bank dated 5 June                 discontinuance of the mechanism has taken effect.
    1998 and the minutes of the decision of the Management
    Committee thereon dated 10 and 11 June 1998 do not,
    taken together, constitute a valid decision of the Manage-          The applicants consider, however, that in fact the Management
    ment Committee to abolish, as from the introduction of              Committee has not adopted a decision to abolish the mechan-
    the single currency on 1 January 1999, the so-called                ism in the context of the non-opposition procedure of June
    ‘special conversion rate’;                                          1998. In the absence of such a decision, the mechanism