CELEX: C1999/333/71
Language: en
Date: 1999-11-20 00:00:00
Title: Case T-200/99: Action brought on 9 September 1999 by Alberto Martinelli against the Commission of the European Communities

20.11.1999             EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 333/31
Action brought on 8 September 1999 by Sgaravatti Medit-                    under Article 24(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88. Never-
erranea S.r.l. against the Commission of the European                      theless, the Commission does not have the power to withdraw
                            Communities                                    the contribution on merely being notified that there have been
                                                                           infringements — it must first examine any evidence brought
                          (Case T-199/99)                                  to light. In the present case, however, there is no mention
                                                                           whatsoever in the reasons for the contested decision of any
                                                                           independent examination of the information gleaned from the
                          (1999/C 333/70)                                  Guardia di Finanza report, in view also of the documents
                                                                           submitted by the applicant.
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           Finally, the applicant also claims that the principle that
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  legitimate expectations should be protected was breached and
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                 that the statement of reasons was inadequate.
European Communities on 8 September 1999 by Sgaravatti
Mediterranea S.r.l., represented by Massimo Merola and Piero
A.M. Ferrari, of the Rome Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue Albert
1er.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           Action brought on 9 September 1999 by Alberto Marti-
— annul Commission Decision C (1999) 1502 of 4 June                        nelli against the Commission of the European Communi-
     1999, or, in the alternative, reduce the amount of the                                              ties
     subsidy to be repaid to the Commission to as low an
     amount as the Court may deem appropriate;
                                                                                                   (Case T-200/99)
— in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                                   (1999/C 333/71)
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant company in the present case contests Com-                                      (Language of the case: Italian)
mission Decision C (1999) 1502 of 4 June 1999 withdrawing
the financial contribution granted by way of Commission                    An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Decision No C(92) 2435 of 12 October 1992, on the granting                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
of EAGGF (Guidance Section) contribution within the meaning                European Communities on 9 September 1999 by Alberto
of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4256/88, in the context of                  Martinelli, represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, of the Vicenza
Project No 92.IT.06.015 entitled ‘Pilot project on techniques              Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
for returning areas to their natural state and nature-sensitive            Chambers of Ernst Arendt, Rue Mathias Hardt.
engineering in Mediterranean areas (Sardinia, Italy)’.
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
In support of its arguments, the applicant claims that the
following were infringed:
                                                                           — declare that the failure to draw up the applicant’s reports
— its right to a fair hearing, inasmuch as the defendant did                   for the periods 1993-1995 and 1995-1997 constitutes a
     not allow the applicant to submit its own comments on                     breach of administrative duty on the grounds set out in
     the evidence proving, in its view, that it had failed to fulfil           the application;
     its obligations under the decision to grant the contribution;
     and                                                                   — order the Commission to pay the official EUR 20 000 by
                                                                               way of making good the non-material damage suffered by
— the principle of proportionality. The applicant maintains                    him as specified in the pre-litigation procedure;
     in this respect that it is clear from the applicable legislation
     that withdrawal of the contribution is justified only where           — order the defendant to pay the costs.
     a breach is of such seriousness that completion of the
     project is jeopardised or involves substantial changes
     regarding the nature itself of the project. However, in the           Pleas in law and main arguments
     present case, the irregularities concern essentially the costs
     relating to the staff employed in the relevant work. In any
     event, according to the applicant, the irregularities are of a        The official, a former official in the scientific and technical
     merely formal nature from which it may not be inferred                services of the Commission, has lodged a complaint in respect
     that fraud was intended.                                              of the failure to draw up and communicate reports for the
                                                                           periods 1993-1995 and 1995-1997.
The applicant states, inter alia, that the defendant has based
the contested decision to withdraw the subsidy mainly on the               In support of his arguments the applicant alleges infringement
finding by the Guardia di Finanza of evidence which ‘could                 of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations and of its implementing
amount to irregularities’, and withdrawn the contribution                  provisions.
 ---pagebreak--- C 333/32              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20.11.1999
So far as concerns specifically the report for 1995-1997, the            — breach of the principle of non-discrimination between
applicant is aware of the fact that the abovementioned                       officials, inasmuch as the appointing authority refuses to
implementing provisions provide that it is not mandatory to                  allow any travelling time linked to leave for trade union
draw up such a report where the official reaches retirement                  purposes, whereas officials who are granted special leave
age before expiry of the time-limit for the report to be                     other than leave for trade union purposes may, depending
communicated. He claims, however, that there are serious                     on the need therefor, be allowed travelling time by special
doubts as to their compatibility with the Staff Regulations on               decision;
which they are based.
                                                                         — breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
                                                                             expectations, inasmuch as the appointing authority is
                                                                             required in any event to respect the legitimate expectations
                                                                             of applicants in its decision-making practices prior to the
                                                                             grant of travelling time linked to leave for trade union
                                                                             purposes, and should have adopted the appropriate tem-
                                                                             porary measures as regards the Congress in question,
Action brought on 13 September 1999 by Patrizia De                           assuming that it was entitled to refuse to grant the
Palma, Jacqueline Escale, Claudine Hamptaux and Harry                        travelling time in issue.
Wood against the Commission of the European Com-
                            munities
                                                                         The applicants also maintain that the obligation to provide a
                                                                         statement of the reasons for those acts has been disregarded in
                        (Case T-203/99)                                  the present case.
                        (1999/C 333/72)
                   (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of European Communities
was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European           Action brought on 23 September 1999 by Olli Mattila
Communities on 13 September 1999 by Patrizia De Palma,                   against the Council of the European Union and the
Jacqueline Escale, Claudine Hamptaux and Harry Wood,                              Commission of the European Communities
residing in Brussels, represented by Carlos Mourato, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service at the office of                                       (Case T-204/99)
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
                                                                                                 (1999/C 333/73)
The applicants claim that the Court should:
— annul the express decisions made on 11 June 1999                                          (Language of the case: English)
    rejecting the complaints lodged by the applicants with the
    appointing authority on 8, 14, 18 and 10 December 1998
    respectively, by which they contested the appointing                 An action against the Council of the European Union and the
    authority’s decision of 23 September 1998 not to accede              Commission of the European Communities was brought
    to the request for leave for trade union purposes or                 before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
    travelling time in order to enable the applicants to attend          on 23 September 1999 by Olli Mattila, represented by Pro-
    the 13th UIECS Congress;                                             fessor Zacharias Sundström, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, 28-10
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                  rue Mathias Hardt.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         — annul the letters of 14 July 1999 and 5 July 1999, in so
By their action, the applicants contest the refusal by the                   far as they contain or communicate any decision or act of
appointing authority to accede to the request for leave for                  the Council and the Commission in response to the
trade union purposes or travelling time for the dates of 25                  applicant’s request under Article 230;
and 28 September 1998 in order to enable trade union
representatives of the UIECS, including the applicants, to               — to order, in any event, the Council and the Commission
attend the 13th Congress of that trade union, held in Italy.                 jointly to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the
                                                                             present proceedings.
In support of their claims, the applicants plead:
— infringement of Article 24a and the second paragraph of                Pleas in law and main arguments
    Article 57 of the Staff Regulations, Articles 6 and 7 of
    Annex V to the Staff Regulations and Article 16 of the               The applicant in the present case challenges the refusal of the
    framework agreement of 20 September 1974 concerning                  defendant institutions to grant it access to specific documents
    relations between the Commission and trade unions and                relating to EU cooperation with Russia and other States of the
    staff associations;                                                  former Soviet Union.