CELEX: C2000/135/44
Language: en
Date: 2000-05-13 00:00:00
Title: Case T-54/00: Action brought on 11 March 2000 by Federación de Cofradías de Pescadores de Guipúzcoa, Federación de Cofradías de Pescadores de Vizcaya, Federación de Cofradias de Peseadores de Cantabria and Others v Council of the European Union

C 135/24               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      13.5.2000
The applicant also submits that the statement of reasons is              In support of her claims, she pleads:
defective and that no investigation was carried out, in so far as
the contested letter bases its statement that there was no abuse         — infringement of the general principle of equal treatment,
of a dominant position by Ancona Merci on the fact that quay                 and of Article 30 of the Staff Regulations and of Annex III
No 25 does not form part of an essential infrastructure within               thereto, in so far as, in the competition in question, there
the meaning of the case-law of the Court of Justice.                         was a second series of written tests for five new candidates.
                                                                             In addition, that competition was open to all members of
                                                                             temporary staff, whether remunerated from the appropri-
(1) OJ L 354 of 30.12.1998, p. 12.                                           ation for ‘research’ or from the appropriation for ‘adminis-
                                                                             tration’. A procedure in respect of appointment as estab-
                                                                             lished officials cannot be organised in the same way for
                                                                             staff under different budgetary terms.
                                                                         — infringement of the fifth paragraph of Article 5 of Annex
                                                                             III to the Staff Regulations and of the principles of having
                                                                             regard for the welfare of officials and of sound management
                                                                             and fair administration, and disregard for the interest of
Action brought on 9 March 2000 by Serena Angioli                             the service. The applicant claims, on that point, that
  against the Commission of the European Communities                         the competition jury selected a number of successful
                                                                             candidates which was lower than the number of posts
                                                                             available and that, in the present case, the jury did not
                         (Case T-53/00)                                      comply with the objective pursued by a recruitment
                                                                             procedure in respect of appointment as established
                        (2000/C 135/43)                                      officials: the appointment as established officials of persons
                                                                             such as to enable the institution to carry out its tasks.
                   (Language of the case: French)                        The applicant also cites the breach of the obligation to state
                                                                         reasons and the existence of a manifest error of assessment.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 9 March 2000 by Serena Angioli,
residing at Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and
Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the decision of the jury for the internal competition            Action brought on 11 March 2000 by Federación de
    concerning the appointment as established officials of               Cofradı́as de Pescadores de Guipúzcoa, Federación de
    members of the temporary staff in category COM/TA/2/98               Cofradı́as de Pescadores de Vizcaya, Federación de Cofrad-
    not to include the applicant on the list of suitable                 ias de Peseadores de Cantabria and Others v Council of
    candidates;                                                                                the European Union
— annul all the other subsequent acts adopted by the                                              (Case T-54/00)
    abovementioned competition jury and by the appointing
    authority;
                                                                                                 (2000/C 135/44)
— in so far as is necessary, annul the decision of the
    appointing authority to reject the applicant’s complaint, a
    decision of 1 December 1999, notified on 7 December
    1999;                                                                                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                  An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                         brought before the Court of First Instance on 11 March 2000
                                                                         by Federación de Cofradı́as de Pescadores de Guipuzcoa,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Federación de Cofradı́as de Pescadores de Vizcaya, Federación
                                                                         de Cofradias de Pescadores de Cantabria and Others, which are
                                                                         registered in San Sebastifin, Bilbao and Santander, respectively,
The applicant contests her exclusion from the list of suitable           represented by Ramón Garcia-Gallardo and Marı́a Dolores
candidates drawn up following her participation in the tests             Domingues Pérez, of the Madrid and La Coruña Bars, respect-
for Competition COM/TA/99.                                               ively, with offices at 19 Square de Meeûs, Brussels.
 ---pagebreak--- 13.5.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 135/25
The applicants claim that the Court of First Instance should:             — Infringement of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of
                                                                              20 December 1992 establishing a Community system for
                                                                              fisheries and aquaculture (3), as regards, in particular,
— Annul part nine of Annex ID to Council Regulation (EC)                      the obligation to provide for rational and responsible
     No 2742/1999 of 17 December 1999 fixing for 2000 the                     exploitation of live aquatic resources of the sea and the
     fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain              principle of relative stability;
     fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in
     Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters               — Infringement of the precautionary principle provided for
     where limitations in catch are required and amending                     in Article 174 of the EC Treaty;
     Regulation (EC) No 66/98;
                                                                          — Infringement of Regulation No 685/95, cited above,
— Annul point 1, 1.1, second subparagraph, indent (i), of                     through transfer of a quota from one zone to another,
     Annex IV to Council Regulation (EC) No 685/95 of                         given that the said regulation provides for the transfer of
     27 March 1995 on the management of the fishing effort                    quotas once a total allowable catch (TAC) has been fixed
     relating to certain Community fishing areas and resources,               for both zones.
     on the basis of the reasons stated, in so far as the Council
     approved, for the year 2000, an analytical TAC for Zone              Finally, the applicants allege infringement of Article 6 of the
     VIII and a common TAC is not possible; and                           European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental
                                                                          Freedoms.
— Order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                          (1) OJ L 341 of 31.12.1999, p. 89.
                                                                          (2) OJ L 71 of 31.3.1995, p. 5.
                                                                          (3) OJ L 92 of 16.4.1993, p. 51.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
The applicants oppose the authorisation for the transfer of
3 000 tonnes of anchovies from ICES zones IX and X, CECAF
area 34.1.1., by the Portuguese Republic to the French Republic
to be fished in waters under French jurisdiction in ICES zone
VIII. That authorisation appears in part nine of Annex ID,                Action brought on 14 March 2000 by Dole Fresh Fruit
relating to anchovy in zones IX and X, CECAF 34.1.1., to                  International Limited against the Council of the European
Council Regulation (EC) No 2742/1999 of 17 December 1999                  Union and the Commission of the European Communities
fixing for 2000 the fishing opportunities and associated
conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks,
applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels,                                         (Case T-56/00)
in waters where limitations in catch are required and amending
Regulation (EC) No 66/98 (1).                                                                     (2000/C 135/45)
The applicants also allege the illegality of Council Regulation                              (Language of the case: English)
(EC) No 685/95 of 27 March 1995 on the management of the
fishing effort relating to certain Community fishing areas and
resources (2).                                                            An action against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                          Commission of the European Communities was brought
                                                                          before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
In support of their claims, they allege:                                  on 14 March 2000 by Dole Fresh Fruit International Limited,
                                                                          represented by Bernard O’Connor, Solicitor.
— There is no res judicata in this case despite the fact that the         The applicant claims that the Court should:
     Court of Justice gave a ruling, in its judgment of 5 October
     1999, on the said transfer of quota carried out in 1995,             — order that the measure of the damages be the level of the
     and that there is no overlap with the contested regulations;             cost of the special export certificates or in the alternative
                                                                              propose other criteria on which the damage may be
                                                                              calculated;
— There is a manifest error in the assessment of the facts
     since the consequences of the scientific reports, as com-
     pared with other criteria, are underestimated;                       — order payment of interest on the damages caused at the
                                                                              appropriate level;
— The objectives of the common agricultural policy envisaged              — order the Commission and/or the Council to pay the costs
     in Article 33 of the EC Treaty have been disregarded;                    of these proceedings.