CELEX: C2003/158/46
Language: en
Date: 2003-07-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-137/03: Action brought on 23 April 2003 by Ornella Mancini against the Commission of the European Communities

5.7.2003                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 158/25
Action brought on 18 April 2003 by Common Market                            Action brought on 23 April 2003 by Ornella Mancini
Fertilizers (CMF) against the Commission of the European                      against the Commission of the European Communities
                             Communities
                                                                                                    (Case T-137/03)
                           (Case T-135/03)
                                                                                                    (2003/C 158/46)
                           (2003/C 158/45)
                                                                                               (Language of the case: French)
                     (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
                                                                            European Communities on 23 April 2003 by Ornella Mancini,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   residing in Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, avocat.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 April 2003 by Common Market
Fertilizers, a company established in Brussels, represented by
Alastair Sutton and Nathalie Flandin, lawyers.                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            —     set aside the decision of the appointing authority of
                                                                                  28 June 2002 not to appoint the applicant to the post of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                       medical consultant to the ‘Brussels Medical Service’ Unit
                                                                                  of DG Admin B8;
—      annul Commission Decision REM 03/02;
                                                                            —     set aside the express decision of 23 January 2003
                                                                                  dismissing the complaint lodged by the applicant;
—      order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                            —     set aside the appointment of another candidate to the
                                                                                  post of medical consultant, which involved inter alia
                                                                                  rejection of the applicant’s candidature for the vacant
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                   post;
                                                                            —     order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of
                                                                                  EUR 15 000 assessed ex æquo et bono as compensation
The applicant is a wholesaler of chemical products and in                         for non-material damage and the adverse effect on the
particular nitrogen solutions. It applied to the French customs                   applicant’s career;
authorities, under Article 239 of Regulation (EC) No 2913/
92 (1), for remission of customs duties in accordance with
Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 3319/94 (2). That appli-                 —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
cation was forwarded by the French authorities to the defend-
ant who, by its contested decision, refused remission.
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of its action, the applicant relies on pleas in law
and arguments which are similar to those relied on by the
same applicant in Case T-134/03.                                            The applicant, who is a medical doctor, is an official working
                                                                            in the Commission’s medical service. In response to a notice
                                                                            of vacancy, she submitted her application for a post of medical
                                                                            consultant. The appointing authority did not select her and
( 1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992                 another candidate was appointed to that post.
     establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302,
     19.10.1992, p. 1).
( 2) Council Regulation (EC) No 3319/94 of 22 December 1994
     imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of urea             The applicant takes the view that the appointing authority has
     ammonium nitrate solution originating in Bulgaria and Poland,          breached Articles 14, 29(1)(a) and 45(1) of the Staff Regu-
     exported by companies not exempted from the duty, and col-             lations and has infringed the principles of legality, equal
     lecting definitively the provisional duty imposed (OJ L 350,           treatment of applicants, entitlement to pursue a career, equal
     31.12.1994, p. 20).                                                    opportunity, and equality as between men and women. In
                                                                            support of her claims, the applicant submits further that the
                                                                            appointing authority acted improperly during the appointment
                                                                            procedure and was guilty of a misuse of powers.
 ---pagebreak--- C 158/26               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          5.7.2003
According to the applicant, the appointing authority commit-              The applicants submit that the defendants made a manifest
ted a manifest error of assessment in selecting a candidate who           error of assessment, misused their powers and violated the
did not satisfy the conditions set out in the notice of vacancy.          legitimate expectations of European consumers.
The appointment of that candidate should for that reason be
set aside. The applicant also asserts that there has been an
infringement of the principle of equal treatment and of the               The applicants maintain that the defendants made a manifest
rules governing the deliberations of the selection board. She             error of assessment in their management of the risks associated
claims that certain members of the selection board were                   with the BSE epidemic by not recommending a forward
not adequately qualified and/or lacked the impartiality and               scientific evaluation of the risk of BSE developing BSE in the
objectivity necessary for sitting on such a board. Furthermore,           various geographical areas of the Union at the time of
the staff reports of the applicant and of the candidate appointed         identification of the causes of the epidemic and of adoption of
evaluate their respective activities and profiles according to            the first protective measures in the United Kingdom. That
different criteria and provisions of the Staff Regulations. In            manifest error of assessment is also evidenced by the failure of
conclusion, the applicant submits that the appointing authority           the defendants to call for a retrospective study to shed light on
infringed the principle of equality as between men and women.             the cause of the infections subsequently recorded in France.
She argues that she was more meritorious than the candidate
who was appointed. Moreover, in the event that her merits
should be deemed to have been no more than equivalent to                  In support of their claims, the applicants submit that the
those of that candidate, priority ought to have been given to             defendants’ conduct in this case constitutes a misuse of powers
the applicant by reason of the fact that she is a woman.                  inasmuch as it was aimed only at protecting in an ill-considered
                                                                          manner the interests of the market and of the beef sector.
                                                                          According to the applicants, the defendants’ action consisted
                                                                          in dissuading the Member States from adopting unilateral
                                                                          protective measures.
Action brought on 24 April 2003 by ‘U’ and Others
                                                                          The applicants further maintain that the defendants’ internal
against the Council of the European Union and the
                                                                          disorganisation led their staff to underestimate the risks of BSE
         Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          developing and by that very fact constitutes a serious breach
                                                                          of the legitimate expectations of European consumers.
                          (Case T-138/03)
                         (2003/C 158/47)                                  The applicants draw attention to the abnormal and special
                                                                          nature of the damage suffered by them as a result of the non-
                   (Language of the case: French)                         natural cause of BSE and of the inapplicability of the European
                                                                          system of producers’ liability for defective products to the case
                                                                          in point.
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
on 24 April 2003 by ‘U’ and Others, represented by François
Honnorat, lawyer.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                          Action brought on 28 April 2003 by Forum 187 against
                                                                                 the Commission of the European Communities
—     order compensation for the non-material or material
      damage suffered by them as a consequence of the
      infection of their close relatives with BSE;                                                 (Case T-140/03)
—     order the defendants to pay the costs.
                                                                                                   (2003/C 158/48)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                               (Language of the case: English)
The applicants all live in France and are victims, either
indirectly or as persons entitled under or through persons who
have died in France, of a ‘variant’ form of Creutzfeldt-Jakob             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
disease. By this action, the applicants are lodging a claim for           ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
damages to compensate for the material or non-material                    European Communities on 28 April 2003 by Forum 187,
damage allegedly suffered as a consequence of the death of                Brussels, Belgium, represented by Mr A. Sutton and Mr
persons infected with BSE.                                                J. Killick, Barristers.