CELEX: C2002/017/31
Language: en
Date: 2002-01-19 00:00:00
Title: Case T-259/01: Action brought on 16 October 2001 by Nutrinveste — Comércio Internacional, S.A. against Commission of the European Communities

C 17/18                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      19.1.2002
Grounds of claim:              Incorrect      interpretation     of      In support of his claims, the applicant relies on the following
                               Article 7 of Regulation 40/94 (1)         pleas:
                               and unjust refusal of evidence
                               filed by the Applicant after the
                               filing of the Application.                —     infringement of Article 1(1) of Annex III to the Staff
                                                                               Regulations and of Article 12 of the Conditions of
                                                                               Employment of Other Servants of the European Com-
                                                                               munities.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
    Community trade mark (OJ L 11, p. 1).
                                                                         —     disregard for the interests of the service.
                                                                         —     the existence, in the present case, of a manifest error of
                                                                               assessment.
                                                                         —     breach of the principle of non-discrimination.
Action brought on 10 October 2001 by Norman Pyres
    against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         The applicant states in that regard that it is for the institution
                                                                         to justify on objective grounds the condition relating to age
                         (Case T-256/01)                                 which it sets in its recruitment notices, such justification to be
                                                                         objective and reasonable, to be in pursuit of a legitimate
                                                                         interest and to observe the requirements of proportionality.
                          (2002/C 17/30)
                   (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Action brought on 16 October 2001 by Nutrinveste —
European Communities on 10 October 2001 by Noramn                        Comércio Internacional, S.A. against Commission of the
Pyres, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersan-                               European Communities
den and Laure Levi, lawyers.
                                                                                                  (Case T-259/01)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                                   (2002/C 17/31)
—     annul the decision of 1 December 2000 of the Selection
      Board in competition COM/R/A/14/2000, the decision of
      4 December 2000 of the Selection Board in competition                               (Language of the case: Portuguese)
      COM/R/A/10/2000 and the decision of 7 December 2000
      of the Selection Board in competition COM/R/A/07/2000
      refusing to allow the applicant to take part in the selection
      procedure;
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on
                                                                         16 October 2001 by Nutrinveste — Comércio Internacional,
                                                                         S.A., established in Algés, Portugal, represented by the lawyers
                                                                         Jorge Monteiro dos Santos, Ana Cristina Vasconcelos, Jorge de
                                                                         Mendia, Sandra Sousa de Almeida and António Texeira de
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Almeida, of Lisbon.
The applicant opposes the decision of the appointing authority           The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
to exclude him from the selection procedure for COM/
R/A/07/2000, COM/R/A/10/2000 and COM/R/A/14/2000,
organised by the Research Directorate General, on the ground             —     Order the European Commission to pay to the applicant
that he did not meet the condition as to age-limit prescribed                  the sum of EUR 61 222 for goods duly delivered but not
therein.                                                                       yet paid for.
 ---pagebreak--- 19.1.2002             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 17/19
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       Socotec International Inspection examined the goods at the
                                                                      warehouses in the country of destination in accordance with
                                                                      Article 16(1) of Regulation No 2200/87, and discovered a
On 8 January 1998 Nutrinveste concluded with the Com-
                                                                      number of irregularities.
mission a contract for the supply of 1 800 tonnes of sunflower
oil.
                                                                      On the basis of the report drawn up by the above firm, the
                                                                      European Commission took the view that Nutrinveste had not
The goods were to be supplied as part of an aid programme             fully complied with the supply contract, not having supplied
carried out under the undermentioned regulations:                     the quantity that it had undertaken to supply, and the
                                                                      Commission therefore reduced the sum payable by EUR
—     Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2200/87 (1) of 8 July            83 320. It also applied a penalty for late delivery and associated
      1987;                                                           irregularities in the sum of EUR 7 916.
—     Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2608/97 (2) of
      22 December 1997.                                               Also, the insurance company paid by way of compensation
                                                                      the sum of PTE 6 116 746 (EUR 30 510.5).
The goods were intended for a number of operations forming
part of the 1995 and 1996 aid programmes. They were                   As a result, Nutrinveste incurred a loss of EUR 61 226
intended for Angola and the shipment was on a ‘free-at-               (53 310 in respect of the unpaid part of the price and 7 916 for
destination’ basis, under Articles 1 and 15 of Regulation No          the penalty imposed on it).
2200/87.
                                                                      Nutrinveste contends that it performed the contract in its
                                                                      entirety and that the Commission has refused to pay part of
Being required to make arrangements for transport and                 the price of the goods at issue without having shown that the
insurance of the goods as far as their destination, Nutrinveste       applicant was responsible for the irregularities and without
concluded a contract of carriage with Orey — Comércio e               having giving reasons for its position.
Navegação, Lda.
                                                                      Finally, in the event of its being considered that, having regard
Before being shipped, the goods were inspected by Socotec             to the place of performance and the rules governing risks, the
International Inspection, to which the European Commission            European Commission does not have to prove the applicant’s
entrusted that task, on the basis of Articles 10 and 16 of            liability for the irregularities in order to justify its refusal to
Regulation No 2200/87, a provisional certificate of conformity        pay, the applicant contends that, in the circumstances of this
having been issued to the effect that no irregularity had been        case, the apportionment of the risk under the contract placed
found regarding quantities.                                           an excessive burden upon it.
The vessels arrived on the scheduled dates but clearance              (1) OJ 1987 L 204, p. 1.
through customs took a long time for various reasons.                 (2) OJ 1997 L 351, p. 44.