CELEX: C1995/229/45
Language: en
Date: 1995-09-02 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 8 May 1995 by Giuseppe Mancini against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-113/95)

?.. 9 . 95            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 229/ 19
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                             Action brought on 8 May 1995 by Giuseppe Mancini
                        of 29 June 1995                                 against the Commission of the European Communities
in Case T-l 83/94: Cantina Cooperativa fra Produttori                                       ( Case T-l 13/95 )
Vitivinicoli di Torre di Mosto and Others v . Commission of                                   ( 95/C 229/45
                the European Communities (*)
(Agriculture — Common organization ofthe market in wine                               (Language of the case: Italian)
— Compulsory distillation scheme — Admissibility —
     Regulation of individual concern to the applicant)
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                           ( 95/C 229/44 )                            Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 8 May 1995 by
                (Language of the case: Italian)                       Giuseppe Mancini, an official of the Ispra division of the
                                                                      Joint Research Centre, residing at Varese ( Italy ),
                                                                      represented by Giuseppe Marchesini, who has a right of
In Case T-l 83/94: Cantina Cooperativa fra Produttori
                                                                      audience before the Corte di Cassazione della Repubblica
Vitivinicoli di Torre di Mosto, Cantina Cooperativa fra
                                                                      Italiana , with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Produttori Vitivinicoli di Quarto d'Altino, Gruppo Pro. Ri .          Chambers of Ernest Arendt.
Ve . Impresa Cooperativa produttori Riuniti Veneti Srl,
Consorzio Cantine Sociali della Provincia di Verona Srl ,
Consorzio Cantine Sociali del Vicentino Srl , Cantine Sociali         The applicant claims that the Court should :
Mandamentali di Dolo, Cantina Cooperativa Produttori di
Valdobbiadene, Cantina Sociale Cooperativa di Campo di                — declare unlawful the removal of Mr Mancini from his
Pietra, Cantina Sociale cooperativa Ponte di Piave, Cantina               post as CEO Project Manager,
Sociale di Ormelle, SpA, Cantina Sociale Cona e Cavarzere
Srl, Cantina Sociale Cooperativa di Gaiarine, Cantina                 — annul the measure effectively adopted and order the
Sociale Cooperativa Basso Piave a RL, Cantina Sociale di                   Commission to reinstate the applicant in his former
Conegliano SC a RL, Consorzio tra le Cantine Sociali del                  post,
Padovano — Patavini , Cantina prà Maggiore Srl , Cantina
Sociale di Premaore di Camponogara — Cooperativa,                     — award the applicant ECU 10 000 — a sum notified to the
Cantina Sociale di Noale — Cooperativa , Consorzio 'La                     Commission during the administrative procedure — by
Marca' Cantine Sociali della Provincia di Treviso,                        way of compensation for non-material damage ,
Cooperativa Agricola La Salute — Ponte di Piave, Cantina
Sociale Cooperativa di Caposile Srl, Consorzio Agrario                — order the Commission to pay the costs .
Interprovinciale TV.BL, Aldo Zanella, Sergio Miotto,
Giovanni Paladin, Franceso Busolin, Luigi Bonotto,
Lamberto Belussi , Giuseppe Busolin, Leonato Nardin,                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Vittorio Meneghello, Alfio Paladin, Galileo Zaninotto,
Giorgio Cecchetto, Antonio Facchin, Silvio Facchin, Enzo              Since 1992 the applicant has held the post of Project
Lorenzon, Carillo Rinaldin, Dino Lorenzon, Primo Toffoli ,            Manager of the CEO ( Centre for Earth Observation )
Renzo Bergamo, Luigi Carraro and Tiziano di Stefani,                  project, reporting to the Director of the ISEI ( Institute for
represented by Ivone Cacciavillani, of the Venice Bar ( Italy ),      Systems Engineering and Informatics ) of the Joint Research
                                                                      Centre . On 21 March 1994 the Director of the ISEI notified
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue Albert 1er, v. Commission of the              the applicant orally of the decision removing him from his
European Communities ( Agents : Eugenio de March and                  post by reasons to do with political insensitivity but not
Alberto Dal Ferro ), supported by the Council of the                  more closely specified . The applicant immediately
European Union ( Agents : Arthur Brautigam and Diego                  submitted a request on 24 March 1994, lodged in
Canga Fano ) — application for the annulment of a number              accordance with Article 90 ( 1 ) of the Staff Regulations,
of Community provisions on compulsory distillation in the             asking that the decision be confirmed in a formal act
wine sector — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber,             specifying the charges against him. Since that request met
Extended Composition ) composed of J. Biancarelli,                    with no response, the applicant submitted a complaint in
President, C. P. Briët, C. B. Bellamy, P. Lindh and J. Azizi ,        accordance with Article 90 ( 2 ) of the Staff Regulations,
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 29 June 1995 ,           which was in turn followed by a long silence on the part of
                                                                      the administration .
the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                       On 28 April 1995 the applicant received a reply to his
 1 . the application is dismissed as inadmissible;                    complaint, in which the Commission acknowledged that the
                                                                      decision removing him from his post was only
2 . the applicants are ordered to pay the costs;                      communicated orally and that, by way of a statement of the
                                                                       reasons for that decision, he had been criticized — again,
 3.   the Council shall bear its own costs .                           orally — for being excessively authoritarian in the
                                                                       performance of his duties .
 (') OJ No C 174 , 25 . 6 . 1994 .
                                                                       The applicant claims that his removal from the post of CEO
                                                                       Project Manager is unlawful and unjust on the following
                                                                       grounds :
 ---pagebreak--- No C 229/20            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2 . 9 . 95
— Dual infringement of the second paragraph of Article 25                 from the effective date of dissolution of the relationship
    of the Staff Regulations: The second paragraph of                      until reinstatement, together with allowance for
    Article 25 of the Staff Regulations provides that any                  inflation and interest, and together also with
    decision relating to a specific individual must be                    compensation for psychological, non-material and
    communicated in writing to the official concerned and                 material damage ( which the applicant reserves the right
    that any decision adversely affecting an official must                to quantify in the course of the action ), together with
    state the grounds on which it is based. The facts, which               interest to be assessed in such manner as may be just;
    are indisputable and which the Commission itself
    accepts, disclose a dual infringement of that provision :
    the decision was not the subject of a formal act                 — order the European Parliament ( ELDR Group ) to pay
                                                                           the costs .
    communicated in writing and still less of a reasoned
    administrative act .
— Manifest injustice : Although the appointing authority             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    has a broad discretion as regards the assignment of
     officials to particular duties or the revocation of such        The applicant, a former member of the temporary staff
     assignments, that discretion is nevertheless limited by         of the Group of the European Liberal Democratic and
    the duty to have regard to the interests of the service, to      Reformist Party, challenges the decision of the European
     accommodate as far as possible the interests of the             Parliament to terminate his indefinite contract, which was
     official and to comply with the relevant legal provisions       taken following a decision of the Bureau of the ELDR
     and principles . In the present case, the applicant was         Group, which gave as its reason that group's results in the
     praised and received expressions of appreciation, in            elections of June 1994 .
     flattering terms, during the years in which he performed
     the duties of CEO Project Manager; in those
     circumstances, the conduct of his superiors is at the very      According to the letter communicating the contested
     least inconsistent. The applicant further points out that       decision to the applicant, his dismissal was the result of the
     he was not assigned to another post, but simply left            reduction in the number of ELDR members after the
     without any clearly defined duties . From any point of          elections . In addition, as the internal composition of the
     view, the removal of the applicant from his post is both        group had changed, it had been found necessary to
     manifestly unjust and ill-founded.                              restructure its secretariat 'on a geographical basis'.
                                                                     The applicant points first to the absence of any reasons given
                                                                     in the contested decision .
                                                                     He also alleges disregard of the internal prior reconciliation
Action brought on 20 May 1995 by Giampaolo Cordiale                  procedure provided for in Article 11 of the Recruitment
                against the European Parliament                       Rules of the Bureau of the Parliament, which applies to 'any
                        ( Case T-123/95 )                             procedure for the termination of the contract of a member of
                          ( 95/C 229/46 )                             the temporary staff . Under that procedure, the Parliament
                                                                      is obliged to give the Staff Committee advance notice of the
                                                                      forthcoming dismissal of the applicant, in order to place the
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                      committee in a position to hear his views and make
                                                                      approaches to the relevant appointing authority.
An action against the European Parliament was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European                    Finally, the applicant considers that the contested decision is
Communities on 20 May 1995 by Giampaolo Cordiale, a                   vitiated for manifest error and misuse of powers, since the
former member of the temporary staff of the European                  geographical reason is invalid . Even if the ELDR Group did
Parliament, resident at Messina ( Italy ), represented by             have one member less than before the 1994 elections, the
Jean-Noel Louis, of the Brussels Bar, and Alberto Panuccio,           number of Italian members nevertheless rose from three to
 of the Bar of Reggio di Calabria, with an address for service        seven. After the elections, France, with only one member in
 in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson, 1 Rue              the ELDR Group, had four staff members; Germany, with
 Glesener .                                                           no member in the group, had two staff members; whilst
                                                                      Italy, which went from three members of the group to seven,
 The applicant claims that the Court should :                          had its staff participation reduced by one-third, with three
                                                                       staff members cut to two .
 — declare unlawful the termination of the indefinite
      temporary contract between the applicant and the                 It therefore follows that, far from equilibrium having been
      European Parliament ( Group of the European Liberal              restored, a disequilibrium has been created .
      Democratic and Reformist Party ( the ELDR Group ));
      consequently annul such termination, ordering the
      reinstatement of the applicant; order the European
      Parliament ( ELDR Group ) to pay all salary and benefits