CELEX: C2004/021/77
Language: en
Date: 2004-01-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-364/03: Action brought on 31 October 2003 by MEDICI GRIMM KG against the Council of the European Union

C 21/36                  EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                       24.1.2004
The applicant also pleads infringement of Article 253 EC.                  Action brought on 31 October 2003 by MEDICI GRIMM
According to the applicant, the Commission has not                                KG against the Council of the European Union
adequately set out the reasons why the transitional rule in
Article 2 of the contested decision must be restricted to
undertakings in respect of which the tax authority had taken a
                                                                                                   (Case T-364/03)
decision as at 11 July 2001.
(1) 2003/515/EC: Commission Decision of 17 February 2003 on the                                     (2004/C 21/77)
    State aid implemented by the Netherlands for international
    financing activities (OJ 2003 L 180, p. 52).
                                                                                             (Language of the case: English)
                                                                           An action against The Council of the European Union was
Action brought on 16 October 2003 by Andreas Mausolf                       brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                           against Europol                                 Communities on 31 October 2003 by MEDICI GRIMM KG,
                                                                           Rodgau Hainhausen, Germany, represented by Dr Robert
                                                                           MacLean, Solicitor with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                           (Case T-355/03)
                            (2004/C 21/76)                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                           —     order that, pursuant to the second paragraph of
                                                                                 Article 288 of the EC Treaty, the Council of Ministers of
                                                                                 the European Union is liable for the damage caused to
                                                                                 the Applicant and order the Council to pay damages to
An action against Europol was brought before the Court of                        the Applicant for the sum of 89 286 EUR in interest and
First Instance of the European Communities on 16 October                         the sum of 81 079 EUR in legal costs of the administrative
2003 by Andreas Mausolf, resident in Leiden (Netherlands),                       procedure, or whatever sums the Court decides appro-
represented by M.F. Baltussen and P. de Casparis.                                priate;
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                —     order the Council to pay the legal costs and expenses of
                                                                                 the procedure.
1)     annul the implicit rejection by Europol of the applicant’s
       complaint challenging the decision of 2 January 2003
       and also to annul the decision of 2 January 2003;
2)     order Europol to pay compensation to Andreas Mausolf,               Pleas in law and main arguments
       including in any event the costs of these proceedings.
                                                                           The applicant is a company dealing in leather handbags. In
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            the course of its business it regularly imported handbags
                                                                           manufactured by a company based in the People’s Republic of
                                                                           China. Council Regulation EC 1567/971 (1) imposed a defini-
The applicant contests the decision not to award him an extra              tive anti-dumping duty on imports of leather handbags
step with effect from 1 July 2002.                                         originating in that country. That Regulation was later amended
                                                                           by Council Regulation (EC) No 2380/98 of 3 November
                                                                           1998 (2) which imposed a specific anti-dumping duty rate of
The applicant submits that the contested decision contains an              0 % on the handbags imported by the applicant.
inadequate statement of reasons and thereby conflicts with the
general principle that decisions must state the reasons on
which they are based.
                                                                           However, this provision was not given retroactive effect and
                                                                           consequently duties paid by the applicant until then were not
                                                                           refunded.
 ---pagebreak--- 24.1.2004                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 21/37
The applicant brought an application before the Court of First              The applicant claims that the Court should:
Instance (3) seeking the annulment of Regulation No 2380/98
insofar as the Council failed to give retroactive effect to the             —     annul the appointing authority’s decision of 11 March
above amendment. By judgement dated 29 June 2000 (4) the                          2003 not to accept the applicant’s candidature for the
Court of First Instance annulled the contested provision.                         post of Director in the Directorate ‘Africa, Caribbean,
Thereafter the Council adopted Regulation (EC) No 133/2001                        Pacific’ (AIDCO.C), as a result of the appointing auth-
of 22 January 2001 (5) amending Regulation (EC) No 1567/97                        ority’s decision of 8 January 2003 to appoint another
and granting retroactive effect to the provision in question. All                 person to that post;
of the applicant’s payments of duties imposed by Regulation
No 1567/97 were refunded to it.                                             —     in any event, orders the defendant to pay the costs.
By its present action the applicant seeks to obtain compen-                 Pleas in law and main arguments
sation in the form of interest on the amounts of import duty
which it initially paid and which were later refunded to it, as
well as in the form of legal expenses it incurred in the course             The applicant in this case challenges the appointing authority’s
of administrative proceedings before the Commission and the                 rejection of his candidature for the post of Director in the
German customs authorities.                                                 Directorate ‘Africa, Caribbean, Pacific’ (AIDCO.C).
                                                                            In support of his claims, he alleges infringement of Article 7,
In support of its application the applicant submits that the                of the second paragraph of Article 25, and Articles 29(1)(a) and
Council acted illegally in refusing to abide by the consequences            45(1) of the Staff Regulations, irregularity in the administrative
of the review findings leading to Regulation 2380/98 and that               procedure prior to the contested decision, and disregard of
this illegal behaviour was of sufficient gravity as to give rise to         general legal principles, such as the protection of legitimate
liability under Article 288 EC.                                             expectations, equal treatment and career progression.
(1 ) OJ L 208, 2.8.1997, p. 31-43.                                          In that regard, the applicant submits, in particular, that his
(2 ) OJ L 296 , 5.11.1998, p. 1-5.                                          candidature was not considered fairly and that he was not, at
(3 ) Case no T-7/99, notified in OJ C 86, 27.3.1999, p. 23.                 the very least, short listed without any statement of reasons,
(4 ) Notified in OJ C 259, 9.9.2000, p. 17.                                 although the appointing authority had recognised his abilities
(5 ) OJ L 23, 25.1.2001, p. 9.                                              for A2 post of Director AIDCO. Furthermore, the appointing
                                                                            authority subsequently established criteria not set out in the
                                                                            vacancy notice.
                                                                            Finally, the appointing authority made a manifest error of
                                                                            assessment in the comparison of the candidates’ respective
                                                                            merits.
Action brought on 5 November 2003 by Jacques Wunen-
burger against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                            Action brought on 7 November 2003 by Vincenzo le Voci
                          (Case T-370/03)                                            against the Council of the European Union
                           (2004/C 21/78)                                                           (Case T-371/03)
                                                                                                     (2004/C 21/79)
                     (Language of the Case: French)
                                                                                               (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   An action against the Council of the European Union was
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                  brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
European Communities on 5 November 2003 by Jacques                          Communities on 7 November 2003 by Vincenzo le Voci,
Wunenburger, residing in Zagreb (Croatia), represented by                   Brussels, (Belgium), represented by B. van de Wal and E. Oude
E. Boigelot, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.             Elferink, lawyers.