CELEX: C1997/357/63
Language: en
Date: 1997-11-22 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 22 September 1997 by Società Eridania SpA and Others against the Council of the European Union (Case T-258/97)

22 . 11 . 97          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 357/33
     'Administrative information' of 7 April 1986 (No 498 ),         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     in so far as the contested decision was signed by a
     head of division posted in Luxembourg and not by the
     Director General for Personnel and Administration,
                                                                     The applicant was employed as a member of the
                                                                     defendant's staff at Ispra . After suffering a skiing accident
                                                                     in March 1982, he took early retirement on 1 March
— infringement of Article 25 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations          1986 on account of partial permanent invalidity. In May
     and of the principle 'non bis in idem', which is                1986 he applied for an increase in the percentage of his
     contained, in particular, in Article 86 ( 3 ) of the Staff      partial invalidity from 28% to 50/55% . After 10 years, in
     Regulations, and a manifest error of assessment, in so          April 1996, the applicant received, as a result, a 14%
     far as the defendant based its refusal to terminate the         increase in the degree of his partial invalidity which
     applicant's temporary secondment to the Publications            brought it up to a total of 42% , a compensation payment
     Office and to reinstate him in his usual duties in the          which was credited to his account on 25 April 1996 .
     Security Office on reasoning relating exclusively to the
     reprimand he received.                                          By his action, the applicant seeks compensation for the
                                                                     damage .suffered by him by reason of the length of time
The applicant claims, in that respect, that the effect of            which it took to process his claim, the period in question
refusing his request on those grounds was to impose a                having lasted from 14 May 1986 until 25 April 1996 , on
second penalty on him for conduct in respect of which                which latter date the payment was made to him.
a definitive disciplinary decision had been taken .
Furthermore, the contested decision implies that the                 The applicant claims compensation for the damage
responsibilities of an official within the Security Office are       suffered as a result of the delay, for the loss culpably
so sensitive that they require a higher level of morality            inflicted on him and for the damage caused by default.
than other departments of the Commission. According to
the applicant, that approach constitutes a manifest error
of assessment. In that respect, he points out that another           According to the applicant, an official who does not
official who was involved in the same disciplinary                   receive a compensation payment until many years after his
proceedings was able to remain in his post, despite the              accident is placed in a considerably worse position than
fact that he carried out very sensitive duties within the            an official in comparable circumstances who receives
'Euratom Security Control' Directorate and received the              payment of the compensation only a short time after the
same reprimand.                                                      accident. Such unequal treatment is in breach of the legal
                                                                     principle prohibiting discrimination. That principle, the
                                                                     counterpart formulation of which is the requirement of
                                                                     equal treatment, prevails over the Staff Regulations of
                                                                     officials of the European Communities, and in this
                                                                     particular case over Article 73 ( 2 ) thereof.
Action brought on 19 September 1997 by Hans C. Herold
   against the Commission of the European Communities                In so far as the defendant seeks to rely on that provision
                                                                     in opposition to the applicant's claim, the applicant will
                        ( Case T-257/97)                             plead that the defendant's obligations even extended to
                          ( 97/C 357/62 )                            securing an amendment to, or supplementation of, the
                                                                     Staff Regulations. Hitherto, however, it has not in fact
                                                                     made any attempt to do so .
               (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 19 September
1997 by Hans C. Herold, residing at Levanto (Italy ),                Action brought on 22 September 1997 by Societa Eridania
represented by Bernd Potthast, Hans-Josef Ruber and                  SpA and Others against the Council of the European
Albert Potthast, Rechtsanwalte, Cologne, with an address                                           Union
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest
Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt.                                                             ( Case T-258/97)
                                                                                              ( 97/C 357/63 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                     (Language of the case: Italian)
— annul the defendant's decision of 20 November 1996 ,
                                                                     An action against the Council of the European Union was
— order the defendant to pay to the applicant                         brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
     compensation in the sum of BF 1 057 567 together                 Communities on 22 September 1997 by Societa Eridania
      with 5 % interest from 26 October 1984,                         SpA whose registered office is at Genoa, and Industria
                                                                      Saccarifera Italiana Agroindustriale SpA, whose registered
                                                                      office is at Padua, of the Eridania Group, Societa Sadam
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                               Zuccherifici, a division of S.E.C.I. ( Societa Esercizi
 ---pagebreak--- C 357/34                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   22 . 11 . 97
Commerciali Industrial^, whose registered office is at                   Instance of the European Communities on 23 September
Bologna, Societa Sadam Castiglionese SpA, whose                          1997 by Rui Teixeira Neves, represented by Adriano
registered office is at Bologna, of the Sadam Zuccherifici               Encarna^ao, of the Oporto Bar, with an address for
Group and Societa Zuccherificio del Molise SpA, whose                    service in Luxembourg at the applicant's address, 100 Rue
registered office is in Termoli, and Societa S.F.I. R. ( Societa         de Steinsel, L-7254 Bereldange.
Fondiaria Industriale Romagnola SpA), whose registered
office is at Cesena, represented by Bernard O'Connor,                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
Solicitor of the High Court of Ireland, Ivano Vigliotti and
Paolo Crocetta, of the Genoa Bar, with an address for
                                                                         — annul the decision of the appointing authority of
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arsene                               20 January 1997 which imposed on the applicant the
Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la Foire.                                         disciplinary measure of relegation in step and
                                                                              accordingly order backdated payment of that part of
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                   the remuneration which he did not receive as a result
                                                                              of that decision together with default interest at 8% ,
— declare void or annul, pursuant to Articles 173 and
       174 of the EC Treaty, Regulation ( EC) No 1188/97 of              — order the defendant to pay to the applicant BF two
      25 June 1997, in so far as it concerns the applicants                   million by way of compensation for the non-material
      or, in the alternative, declare void or annul that                      damage caused by the contested decision,
      regulation erga omnes, in particular as regards
      Article 1 ( f),
                                                                         — order the defendant to pay all the costs, including
                                                                              those incurred by the applicant.
— declare inapplicable, pursuant to Article 184 of the EC
      Treaty, Regulation ( EEC ) No 1785/81 of 30 June
       1981 and subsequent amendments thereto, in so far as              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
       it concerns the applicants, in particular as regards
      Articles 3 ( 1 ), 5 ( 3 ) and 6 (2 ),                              The applicant objects to the way in which the appointing
                                                                         authority conducted the disciplinary proceedings which
— order the Council, pursuant to Article 178 and the                     resulted in the disciplinary measure challenged in the
       second paragraph of Article 215 of the EC Treaty, to              present case .
      make good all the damage caused to the applicants,
       taking into account accrued interest and currency                 In support of his application the applicant relies on the
       fluctuations,                                                     following:
— order the Council to pay the costs of the proceedings.                   1 . Gross and total breach of the principle of the division
                                                                               of powers .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                          2 . Alteration and blatant manipulation of the content of
The pleas and main arguments are those relied on in Case                       the motion objected to, put forward in the Staff
T-l 68/95 Eridania and Others ('). More particularly, the                      General Assembly of 2 September 1995 .
applicants consider that the contested regulation is
unlawful on the grounds of belated adoption, inadequate                    3 . Error in law inasmuch as the applicant did not
statement of reasons, arbitrary classification of Italy as a                   conduct himself in a manner contrary to paragraph 1
deficit area and discrimination against the Italian sugar                      of Article 11 , paragraph 1 of Article 12 and Article 21
industry. They also claim that Regulation ( EEC ) No 1785/                     of the Staff Regulations but merely sought
81 of 30 June 1981 on the common organization of the                           scrupulously to comply with those provisions.
markets in the sugar sector ( 2 ) is in part inapplicable .
                                                                           4. The allegations against him are unlawful in that the
H OJ C 229 , 11 . 11 . 1995 , p. 6 .
( 2 ) OJ L 177, 1 . 7. 1981 , p . 4 .
                                                                                Court of First Instance did not complain that it had
                                                                                been offended.
                                                                           5 . Breach of the rights of the defence, of the principle
                                                                               audi alteram partem and of the principle of equality
                                                                               of arms, inasmuch as, first, the allegation was not
Action brought on 23 September 1997 by Rui Teixeira                            communicated to the applicant before the hearing of
          Neves against the Court of Justice of European                        3 October 1995 and, secondly, the party levelling the
                               Communities                                      accusation participated in the administrative
                                                                               committee's deliberations on the disciplinary
                            ( Case T-259/97 )                                  proceedings .
                              ( 97/C 357/64 )
                                                                           6 . Breach of the presumption of innocence, since guilt
                (Language of the case: Portuguese)                             was considered an irrebutable presumption and its
                                                                                mere challenge taken as an aggravating factor. In this
An action against the Court of Justice of the European                          regard the intention was to interfere with the
Communities was brought before the Court of First                               proceedings.