CELEX: C2004/059/45
Language: en
Date: 2004-03-06 00:00:00
Title: Case T-429/03: Action brought on 21 December 2003 by Gregorio Valero Jordana against the Commission of the European Communities

C 59/28                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          6.3.2004
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              approval of this sum, which the applicant duly did. On
                                                                         20 October 2003, however, the Commission proceeded to
                                                                         pay to the applicant the sum of EUR 257 598,91 which, as it
—     Direct the defendant to honour the settlement agreement            claimed in subsequent correspondence, represented the final
      reached with the applicant and to pay it a total final sum         amount due under the agreement.
      in respect of the Grant Agreement of EUR 40 919,65.
—     Annul the Commission’s Decision of 20 October 2003                 In support of its application the applicant first submits that a
      to pay only EUR 257 598,91, despite the existence of the           binding settlement agreement was reached in May 2003
      settlement agreement.                                              between the parties, providing that the amount payable would
                                                                         be EUR 298 518,65. It therefore asks the Court to enforce that
                                                                         agreement. In the alternative, if the Court should conclude that
—     In the alternative to the first and second pleas above,            no settlement agreement was reached, the applicant claims
      should the Court find that no settlement agreement exists,         that the Commission was bound to pay the original amount
      to order the defendant to pay the applicant the final              claimed, i.e. EUR 305 305,30, since it failed to express its
      amount specified in its Final Report, less amounts already         concerns within sixty days of receipt of the application of
      paid, totalling EUR 47 706,39.                                     payment. The applicant further argues that, in any case, the
                                                                         Commission’s decision to pay the applicant only
                                                                         EUR 257 598,91 should be annulled for failure to state reasons
—     In the further alternative to the first and second pleas           and for non-respect of the applicant’s right to be heard by the
      above, should the Court find that no settlement agreement          Commission before the final decision was adopted.
      exists, annul the Commission’s Decision of 20 October
      2003 to pay only EUR 257 598,91 despite the applicant’s
      contractual claim in the Final Report for
      EUR 305 305,30.
—     Order the defendant to pay interest on any amounts that
      the Court finds remain due or have been paid late in
      accordance with the pleas above.
                                                                         Action brought on 21 December 2003 by Gregorio
                                                                         Valero Jordana against the Commission of the European
—     Order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings.                                   Communities
                                                                                                 (Case T-429/03)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                   (2004/C 59/45)
                                                                                            (Language of the case: French)
The Applicant is an international nonprofit making association
active in the field of new car safety. On 22 August 2001, the
applicant submitted to the Commission an application for a
grant of 25 % funding of a project concerned with the safety             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
assessment of certain types of vehicles, most notably four               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
wheel drive vehicles. Thereafter, on 12 October 2001 the                 European Communities on 21 December 2003 by Gregorio
applicant and the Commission concluded a Grant Agreement                 Valero Jordana, residing in Uccle (Belgium), represented by
the terms of which provided that the applicant would present             Nicolas Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxem-
to the Commission a final statement of all eligible costs, that          bourg.
on the basis of an examination of the final settlement the
Commission would pay the balance of the grant to the
applicant and that all sums under the agreement were to be               The applicant claims that the Court should:
paid within sixty days unless the Commission, within that
period, informed the applicant that the request was not                  —    Annul the decision of the appointing authority dated
admissible . On 10 December 2002 the applicant submitted                      19 December 2003 confirming the applicant’s initial
an application for payment of the outstanding balance, of the                 classification in Grade A 7;
grant, which it claimed was EUR 305 305,30. On 31 March
2003, i.e. more than sixty days after receipt of the application,
the Commission, not having paid the sum requested, raised                —    In so far as necessary, annul the decision of the appointing
certain queries with the applicant. These led to further                      authority of 9 September 2003 rejecting the applicant’s
submissions of documents by the applicant and a meeting                       complaint;
between the parties representatives. On 2 May 2003 the
Commission informed the applicant that final payment would               —    Order the defendant to pay all the costs of the proceed-
be EUR 298 518,65 and asked the applicant to mark its                         ings.
 ---pagebreak--- 6.3.2004               EN                             Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 59/29
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               Article 82 EC in refusing to conclude a cross-border roaming
                                                                              (GSM) agreement with the applicant. The applicant later
                                                                              converted that complaint into a complaint under Article 86
Following the judgment of the Court of First Instance in Case                 (EC, in conjunction with Articles 82 EC, 49 EC and 12
T-17/95 (1), the Commission adopted an amendment of the                       EC, against Spain alleging that Telefonica was acting under
rules relating to the criteria applicable to appointment in grade             instructions from the Spanish Government which claims
and classification in scale on recruitment, which entitled                    sovereignty over Gibraltar.
officials to seek a review of their classification on entering the
service. By the contested decision, the Commission confirmed
the applicant’s classification in Grade A 7 on the date of his
recruitment and, accordingly, rejected a request for reclassifi-              In support of its application, the applicant invokes a series of
cation submitted by the applicant.                                            alleged manifest errors of assessment of the contested decision.
                                                                              According to the applicant, the Commission erred in consider-
                                                                              ing that Telefonica is not a public undertaking or that it enjoys
In support of his action, the applicant relies on a failure to                special rights within the meaning of article 86 EC. The
state reasons in the contested decision, a manifest error of                  applicant further alleges that Telefonica is in a dominant
assessment and alleged discrimination between the applicant,                  position and that there is an appreciable effect on trade and
whose request for reclassification was rejected, and other                    on competition of the refusal to conclude an agreement with
officials who, with less professional experience than the                     the applicant. In the context of the same plea the applicant
applicant, were none the less reclassified in the higher grade of             argues that the Commission’s assessment that consumers in
the career bracket.                                                           Gibraltar have access to mobile telecommunications services
                                                                              in Spain is manifestly unsound and that there is no suitable
                                                                              alternative to the Commission’s intervention.
(1) Judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-
    ties of 5 October 1995, published in OJ C 315, 25.11.95, p. 14.
                                                                              The applicant further puts forward a number of procedural
                                                                              and administrative grounds for annulment referring, in this
                                                                              context, to inadequate reasoning and a violation of the
                                                                              applicant’s legitimate expectations which allegedly arose as a
                                                                              result of a letter sent on 7 June 2000 by three members of the
Action brought on 24 December 2003 by Gibtelecom                              Commission to Spain and the United Kingdom, requesting the
Limited against the Commission of the European Com-                           two countries, among other things, to find a solution to the
                              munities                                        complaint about roaming. The applicant further submits, in
                                                                              the context of the same plea, that the Commission has failed
                         (Case T-433/03)                                      to act impartially and that it has breached the principle
                                                                              requiring it to act within a reasonable period.
                          (2004/C 59/46)
                   (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 24 December 2003 by Gibtelecom                        Action brought on 24 December 2003 by Gibtelecom
Limited, Gibraltar, represented by Mr M. Llamas, Barrister and                Limited against the Commission of the European Com-
Mr B. O’Connor Solicitor.                                                                                  munities
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                                       (Case T-434/03)
—      Annul the Commission’s decision of 17 October 2003
       rejecting the complaint brought by Gibtelecom under
                                                                                                        (2004/C 59/47)
       Article 86 EC in conjunction with Article 82 EC;
—      order the Commission to pay Gibtelecom’s costs.                                            (Language of the case: English)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
By the contested decision the Commission rejected a complaint                 ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
filed by the applicant on 14 May 1996 alleging that the                       European Communities on 24 December 2003 by Gibtelecom
Spanish telecommunications operator, Telefonica SA, had                       Limited, Gibraltar, represented by Mr M. Llamas Barrister and
committed a series of abuses of dominant position contrary to                 Mr B. O’Connor Solicitor.