CELEX: C1997/331/40
Language: en
Date: 1997-11-01 00:00:00
Title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 9 July 1997 in Case T-63/96: Augusto Fichtner v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials - Staff reports - Complaint - Implicit rejection - Manifest inadmissibility of the application)

1 . 11 . 97               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 331/19
common market — the Court of First Instance (Fifth                          Action brought on 24 July 1997 by H & R Ecroyd
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: R.                             Holdings Ltd. against the Commission of the European
Garcia-Valdecasas, President, V. Tiili, J. Azizi, R. M.                                                Communities
Moura Ramos and M. Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair,                                                         ( Case T-220/97)
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
25 September 1997, in which it:                                                                       ( 97/C 331/41 )
1 . annuls the decision reproduced in Commission notice                                      (Language of the case: English)
       94/C 400/02 pursuant to Article 6 (4) of Decision
       No 3855/91 /ECSC          to   other Member States and
       interested parties concerning aid which Luxembourg                   An action against the Commission of the European
       plans to grant to ProfilARBED SA (Arbed) (State Aid                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
       C 25/94 (ex N 11 /94));                                              Instance of the European Communities on 24 July 1997
                                                                            by H & R Ecroyd Holdings Ltd., represented by William
2 . orders the Commission to pay the costs;                                 Neville, Peter Duffy and Philippa Watson, with an address
                                                                            for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger
                                                                            Hoss and Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill.
3 . orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and Arbed
       SA to bear their own costs.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
H OJ C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
( 2 ) OJ C 400, 31 . 12 . 1994, p . 10 .
                                                                            — annul the Commission's decision contained in its letter
                                                                                 dated 16 May 1997 addressed to the applicant's
                                                                                 solicitor, and
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                            — order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs of
                                                                                 the proceedings.
                            of 9 July 1997
in Case T-63/96: Augusto Fichtner v. Commission of the
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                     European Communities (')
 (Officials — Staff reports — Complaint — Implicit
     rejection — Manifest inadmissibility of the application)               The applicant refers to the preliminary ruling of the Court
                                                                            of Justice of 6 June 1996 in Case C-127/94 (The Queen v.
                             ( 97/C 331/40 )                                Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte: H
                                                                            & R Ecroyd Holdings Ltd. and John Rupert Ecroyd
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                           [ 1996] ECR 1-2731 ), hereinafter 'the judgment', holding
                                                                            that producers such as the applicant had been unlawfully
In Case T-63/96 : Augusto Fichtner, an official of the                      excluded from the award of a special reference quantity
Commission of the European Communities, residing at                         under Article 3a ( 1 ) of Regulation (EEC ) No 857/84 of
Besozzo ( Italy ), represented by Vincenzo Salvatore, of the                31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the application
Pavia Bar, v. Commission of the European Communities                        of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation ( EEC )
 (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Alberto dal Ferro) —                       No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector, as
application, first, for annulment of the Commission's                       amended by Regulation (EEC ) No 764/89 of 20 March
                                                                            1989 .
decision of 12 February 1996 expressly rejecting the
 applicant's complaint of 14 February 1995 concerning his
 staff report for the period from 1 July 1991 to 30 June                    The applicant challenges the Commission's decision of
 1993 and, second, for damages for the material and non­                     16 May 1997 asserting that it has no obligation to ensure
 material loss allegedly suffered by the applicant — the                    that effect is given to the judgment. In consequence of this
 Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber ), composed of:
                                                                            refusal, the applicant remains unlawfully deprived of
 K. Lenaerts, President; P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges;                  quota since 1989 and is suffering severe and continuous
 H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 9 July 1997, the                      loss .
 operative part of which is as follows :
 I. The        application       is      dismissed    as    manifestly      The applicant pleads infringement of Articles 155 and 176
        inadmissible;                                                       of the EC Treaty and of fundamental rights. Articles 155
                                                                             and 176 impose legal obligations on the Commission to
                                                                            take the 'necessary steps to comply with' a ruling of the
 2 . The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
                                                                             Court, and according to the Court's case-law, the
                                                                             Commission is obliged 'to review the individual situation'
 w OJ C 233 , 10. 8 . 1996 .                                                 of a person who has been the victim of unlawful
                                                                             treatment. The Commission's position displays a serious
                                                                             misunderstanding of its clear obligations .