CELEX: C2000/355/77
Language: en
Date: 2000-12-09 00:00:00
Title: Case T-312/00: Action brought on 29 September 2000 by Alexandra Tavares against the Commission of the European Communities

C 355/36                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       9.12.2000
Action brought on 28 September 2000 by British Amer-                      invoking any exception to the Access Rules (2). Accordingly
ican Tobacco (Investments) Limited against the Com-                       the applicant holds that the Access Rules in general and its
             mission of the European Communities                          right of access in particular have been infringed.
                                                                          (1) Proposal for a directive of the European Parlament and of the
                          (Case T-311/00)
                                                                              Council on the approximation of the laws, regulations and
                                                                              administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the
                                                                              manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products (recast
                          (2000/C 355/76)                                     version) (COM/99/594 final).
                                                                          (2) Commission Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom of 8 February
                                                                              1994, on public access to Commission documents (OJ L 46,
                                                                              p. 58).
                   (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 28 September 2000 by British
American Tobacco (Investments) Limited, represented by Scott              Action brought on 29 September 2000 by Alexandra
Crosby, Solicitor, of Kemmler Rapp Böhlke & Crosby, Brussels.             Tavares against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                                        munities
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                        (Case T-312/00)
                                                                                                   (2000/C 355/77)
—     annul the decision of the Commission of 7 September
      2000 refusing access to the range of international scien-
                                                                                              (Language of the case: French)
      tific research on which proposal Com 1999(594) final
      was based, to the records of the Commission’s assessment
      thereof and to the minutes of the Cancer Experts Com-               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      mittee, the High level Cancer Experts Committee and the             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      Advisory Committee for Cancer Prevention (the Cancer                European Communities on 29 September 2000 by Alexandra
      Committees) assessing said range of international scien-            Tavares, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Louis Tinti of
      tific research, all as specified in the request for access of       the Luxembourg Bar.
      6 June 2000;
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant           —     annul the implied decision rejecting her application
      to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of                   lodged in accordance with Article 90 of the Staff Regu-
      First Instance.                                                           lations in so far as it refuses to grant her the installation
                                                                                allowance laid down by Article 5(1) of Annex VII to the
                                                                                Staff Regulations and the daily subsistence allowance laid
                                                                                down by Article 10(1) of that annex;
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           —     order the Commission to account to the applicant for the
                                                                                sums due in respect of the installation allowance and the
                                                                                daily subsistence allowance, plus interest for delay at the
The applicant is a company belonging to the British American                    rate of 8 % per annum as from the date on which the
Tobacco (BAT) group of companies. The principal activity of                     amounts became due;
the BAT group is the manufacture, distribution and sale of
tobacco products. On 6 June 2000, it requested access to two              —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
categories of documents in connection with the Commission
proposal for a directive on tobacco products (1). The first               Pleas in law and main arguments
category comprised documents containing scientific evidence
about tobacco products and the second comprised documents
                                                                          In support of her action, the applicant claims:
containing scientific evidence on the behaviour of consumers.
                                                                          —     Infringement of the first paragraph of Article 5(1) of
                                                                                Annex VII of the Staff Regulations of officials. That
The applicant maintains that the administrative procedure has                   provision, as interpreted by the case-law, provides that
revealed that a number of documents exist or may be presumed                    an official who is granted an expatriation allowance is
to exist which are Commission documents and are within the                      automatically entitled to receive an installation allowance.
scope of the request for access. None of these documents                        It was thus on the basis of an erroneous interpretation of
having been forwarded or otherwise made accessible to the                       the above provision that the contested decision refuses
applicant, it infers that the Commission has rejected its request               the installation allowance to the applicant, whereas the
for access, but without giving any reasons for non-access or                    expatriation allowance was granted to her.
 ---pagebreak--- 9.12.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 355/37
—     Infringement of Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff               —     failure to fulfil the duty to have regard for the welfare of
      Regulations. The applicant was entitled to the daily                     officials;
      subsistence allowance laid down by that provision, since
      she was required to change her place of residence to               —     infringement of Community rules on free movement for
      Luxembourg for the sole purpose of being able to carry                   workers;
      out the work for which she was employed, whereas the
      centre of her interests remained in Portugal.                      —     failure to fulfil the obligation to provide reasons.
                                                                         Action brought on 10 October 2000 by AgipPetroli SpA
Action brought on 29 September 2000 by Sjoerd Feenstra                       against Commission of the European Communities
    against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                   (Case T-317/00)
                         (Case T-313/00)
                                                                                                   (2000/C 355/79)
                         (2000/C 355/78)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: Italian)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               European Communities on 10 October 2000 by AgipPetroli
European Communities on 29 September 2000 by Sjoerd                      SpA, represented by Mario Siragusa of the Rome Bar, Matteo
Feenstra, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vander-           Beretta, of the Bergamo Bar, Francesca Maria Moretti, of the
sanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar.                              Venice Bar, and Eduardo De Simone, of the Naples Bar, with
                                                                         an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                         Elvinger Hoss & Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision taken by the appointing authority on
      27 September 1999 grading the applicant in Grade A 7,              —     annul the contested decision in whole or in part in so far
      step 3;                                                                  as it concerns the applicant;
—     order the defendant to pay damages provisionally asses-            —     order the Commission to pay all the costs.
      sed, ex aequo et bono, at 1 euro;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         On 9 February 2000, the European Commission adopted a
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          decision whereby it declared the acquisition of Elf Aquitaine
                                                                         S.A. by Totalfina compatible with the common market and
                                                                         with the Agreement on the European Economic Area. That
The applicant, who was a successful candidate in competition             decision was subject to the compliance by Totalfina with a
COM/A/764, contests the appointing authority’s decision to               number of undertakings, including the undertaking to sell
grade him, on establishment, at Grade A 7, step 3.                       70 petrol stations located on the French motorway network,
                                                                         specifically set out in a table appended to the decision.
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:
                                                                         The present case has been brought against the decision of the
—     manifest error of assessment;                                      Commission of 13 September 2000 (SG (2000) D/106729)
                                                                         rejecting the plan submitted by Totalfina S.A., with the purpose
                                                                         of implementing the abovementioned decision of 9 February
—     infringement of Articles 31(2) and 32 of the Staff                 2000 Totalfina/Elf (COMP/M. 1628). That decision rejected
      Regulations;                                                       the plan put forward on account of the fact that two
                                                                         prospective purchasers, one of which was the applicant itself,
—     breach of the principle of non-discrimination;                     were not in a position to compete effectively against Totalfina.