CELEX: C2003/213/80
Language: en
Date: 2003-09-06 00:00:00
Title: Case T-256/03: Action brought on 14 July 2003 by Bundesverbandes der Nahrungsmittel- und Speiseresteverwerter e.V. and Josef Kloh against the Commission of the European Communities

6.9.2003              EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 213/41
European Communities on 8 July 2003 by José Manuel López                In support of his action the applicant alleges infringements of
Cejudo, residing in Brasilia (Brazil), represented by Georges           Annex X to the Staff Regulations and breach of the principle
Vandersanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.                                   of equal treatment and of the principle patere legem quam ipse
                                                                        fecit. As regards the decision concerning his allowance for
                                                                        living conditions, the applicant also alleges unjust enrichment
                                                                        on the part of the Communities and breach of the duty to state
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             reasons and breaches of the principles of lawfulness and sound
                                                                        administration.
—     annul the decision of the appointing authority of 12 June
      2002 concerning the allocation of housing to the appli-           (1 ) Judgment of 12 November 2002 in Case T-271/01 José Manuel
      cant and annul the decision of the appointing authority                López Cejudo v Commission of the European Communities
      contained in the applicant’s salary slip for July 2002                 [2002] ECR SC II-1109, communicated in OJ No C 19 of
      relating to the application of the allowance for living                25 January 2003, p. 33.
      conditions referred to in Article 10 of Annex X to the
      Staff Regulations;
—     annul, so far as may be necessary, the decision of
      28 March 2003 rejecting the applicant’s complaint lodged
      on 5 September 2002;
—     order the defendant to pay default interest running from
      July 2000 on the difference between the amount received
      by the applicant as allowance for living conditions and           Action brought on 14 July 2003 by Bundesverbandes der
      the amount which he ought to have received, having                Nahrungsmittel- und Speiseresteverwerter e.V. and Josef
      regard to his four dependent children, until payment in           Kloh against the Commission of the European Communi-
      full, the rate of default interest applied having to be                                            ties
      calculated on the basis of the rate set by the European
      Central Bank for principal refinancing operations appli-
      cable during the period in question, increased by two
                                                                                                 (Case T-256/03)
      points;
—     order the defendant to pay one euro as a token in                                          (2003/C 213/80)
      reparation of non-material damage;
                                                                                           (Language of the Case: German)
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 14 July 2003 by Bundesverbandes
                                                                        der Nahrungsmittel- und Speiseresteverwerter e.V., Bochum
                                                                        (Germany) and Josef Kloh, Eichenried (Germany), represented
                                                                        by R. Steiling and S. Wienhues, lawyers.
The applicant, a Commission official posted to the Brasilia
delegation, has four children now living with their mother, the
applicant’s ex-wife. None the less, the applicant contributes to
the children’s actual maintenance, as has already been recog-           The applicants claim that the Court should:
nised by the Court of First Instance in other proceedings
brought by the applicant (1). The present dispute concerns two
decisions of the Commission, one refusing the applicant                 —      annul Articles 1 and 6 of the Commission Decision of
authorisation for housing including five bedrooms in order to                  12 May 2003 (2003/328/EC) in so far as, as derogations
accommodate his four children, on the ground that they live                    regarding category 3 catering waste in feed for pigs and
with their mother in Europe ,and the other, communicated to                    the intra-species recycling ban on the feeding of swill to
the applicant by means of his salary slip for July 2002 taking                 pigs, they apply until 31 October 2006 at the latest;
into account, for the purpose of defining the allowance for
living conditions (Article 10 of Annex X to the Staff Regu-
lations), of two children only instead of four.                         —      order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
 ---pagebreak--- C 213/42                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          6.9.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants in Case T-391/02 ( 1) brought an action for                 The applicant has worked for the defendant since 1 July 1999.
annulment of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European                  On 1 July 2003 his current contract expires. However, the
Parliament and of the Council ( 2) and claimed that the Court              applicant’s request for a renewal of her contract was rejected
should annul the Regulation in so far as derogations to the                by the defendant. The applicant is challenging that decision.
prohibition on the use of catering waste in feed under
Article 22 are permitted for no more than four years from
1 November 2002. The contested decision adopts transitional                In support of his application the applicant first alleges an
measures in accordance with Article 32(2) of the Regulation.               infringement of the duty to provide a statement of reasons.
The applicants claim that the time-limit on the transitional               The applicant goes on to assert that the defendant exceeded its
measures is unlawful. It is not necessary for the purpose of               policy-making powers. The defendant drew up basic principles,
achieving the intended objective. For the rest, the applicants             policy rules and a stage plan to ensure that contracts are
refer to the pleas and arguments put forward in Case T-391/                extended in a clear and transparent manner. According to the
02.                                                                        applicant the defendant exceeded its margin of discretion in
                                                                           the application of those rules.
( 1) OJ 1992 C 44, p. 42.
( 2) Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and           Finally, the applicant submits that there was an infringement
     of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules             of the duty of care, as well as an infringement of the principle
     concerning animal by-products not intended for human consump-         of equal treatment.
     tion (OJ 2002 L 273, p. 1).
                                                                           Lastly, the applicant asserts that the fact that he is a member
                                                                           of Europol’s supervisory body and a union member are the
                                                                           reasons why his contract is not being extended. The applicant
                                                                           is of the view that employees who are members of a
                                                                           co-determination body must enjoy extra protection against
                                                                           dismissal and that in such cases it is for the employer to show
                                                                           that there is no connection between the dismissal and the
Action brought on 11 July 2003 by Andreas Mausolf v                        activities of the employee.
                               Europol
                          (Case T-258/03)
                          (2003/C 213/81)
                                                                                   Removal from the register of Case T-280/93 (1)
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                                   (2003/C 213/82)
An action against Europol was brought before the Court of                                     (Language of the Case: English)
First Instance of the European Communities on 11 July 2003
by Andreas Mausolf, residing in Leiden (Netherlands) and
represented by M.F. Baltussen and P. Casparis.
                                                                           By order of 12 June 2003 the President of the First Chamber
                                                                           of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                ordered the removal from the register of Case T-280/93: Brian
                                                                           Stephen Garrett v Council of the European Union and
                                                                           Commission of the European Communities.
(1) annul the (partial) rejection by Europol on 14 April 2003
        of the applicant’s complaint against the decision of
        30 September 2002, together with the latter decision;
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 302 of 19.11.1992.
(2) order Europol to pay the applicant compensation includ-
        ing in any event the costs of the proceedings.