CELEX: C1997/108/45
Language: en
Date: 1997-04-05 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 6 February 1997 by Antillean Rice Mills NV against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-26/97)

No C 108/22           EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    5 . 4 . 97
excludes it from the procedure and consequently from the                — order the defendant to pay the costs .
conclusion of renewable four-year contracts in private
tendering procedures ( involving for the first four-year                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
period a sum of at least ECU 18 million); in other words,
once the contracts are concluded, they are capable of                   The applicant, who was engaged on 1 December 1994 as
excluding for an indefinite period, as regards those not                a member of the temporary staff in Grade B 3 at the
allowed to participate, the possibility of gaining access to            Commission, challenges the decision to impose on her the
the sector or of continuing to operate in it.                           disciplinary measure of termination of her employment
                                                                        without notice, provided for in Article 50 ( 1 ) of the
The applicant also claims that any purported imposition                 Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the
of the condition, for admission to competitive bidding for
                                                                        European Communities ( CEOS ), on the ground that she
the supply of services, that candidates must have a                     had furnished false information as to her qualifications.
subsidiary in Community countries other than that in
which they are established infringes the Community rules
on services and contracts. The applicant states that, at a              The applicant alleges, in the first place, infringement of
meeting with DG VIII, the Director made it clear that, in               Articles 12 and 50 of the CEOS and the third paragraph
adopting the contested decision, importance had been                    of Article 5 ( 1 ) of the Staff Regulations and a manifest
attached to the fact that the applicant had not indicated in            error of assessment. She points out, in this regard, that she
its application that it had ' branch offices' in Community              fulfils the general and particular qualifications required by
countries. In so far as that requirement may be a                       the vacancy notice even if she did not possess, as she had
manifestation of a new Commission policy, the applicant                 stated in her application form, a secondary school
considers that participation in a tendering procedure for               diploma. The applicant points out that she holds a
the award of a contract cannot have applied to them a                   university degree in the specific field mentioned in the
policy adopted by a Commission department which is not                  vacancy notice and can show evidence of professional
clearly set out in the notice of tender.                                experience in excess of the minimum required. She
                                                                        therefore concludes that the inaccurate information which
In any event, the applicant considers that a European                   she furnished in her application form did not mislead the
Economic Interest Grouping or a ' dependency thereof in                 Administration as to her professional abilities and that,
which an undertaking has a holding' cannot be regarded                  accordingly, it could not have been a determining factor in
as a subsidiary of that undertaking. It states in that                  her being employed , as the defendant maintains .
connection that, from informal contacts with other firms
participating in the procedure and from information                     The applicant claims, moreover, that the authority
obtained from those responsible for the sector, it has                  empowered to conclude contracts of employment cannot
emerged that a number of those prequalified were selected               terminate her contract on the ground that a diploma is
on the basis that they had met the requirement of what                  missing, since it is not competent to verify the conditions
DG VIII has defined as ' branch offices' by setting up a                governing access to the selection procedure for temporary
grouping of that kind shortly before submitting their                   staff.
applications.
(') OJ No C 177, 20 . 6 . 1996 , p . 9 .
                                                                        Action brought on 6 February 1997 by Antillean Rice
                                                                        Mills NV against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                  Communities
Action brought on 30 January 1997 by Sofia Goycoolea
   against the Commission of the European Communities                                           ( Case T-26/97 )
                          ( Case T-21/97)                                                         97/C 108/45 )
                           ( 97/C 108/44
                                                                                        (Language of the case: Dutch)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European
 An action against the Commission of the European                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
 Communities was brought before the Court of First                       Instance of the European Communities on 6 February
 Instance of the European Communities on 30 January                      1997 by Antillean Rice Mills NV, Bonaire (Netherlands),
 1997 by Sofia Goycoolea, residing at Brussels, represented              represented by W. Knibbeler and K. J. Defares, of the
 by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel                 Amsterdam and Rotterdam Bars respectively, with an
 of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in                     address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of N.
 Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 30 Rue de                          Loesch, 1 1 Rue Goethe .
 Cessange .
 The applicant claims that the Court should :                            The applicant claims that the Court should :
 — annul     the    decision     of      the Director-General   of       — annul Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 21 /97 of
     Personnel and Administration of 7 May 1996                               8 January 1997 introducing safeguard measures in
     terminating the applicant's contract as a member of                      respect of imports of rice originating in the overseas
     the temporary staff on 1 September 1996 ,                                countries and territories P ),
 ---pagebreak--- 5 . 4 . 97               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                            No C 108/23
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                Communities on 27 February 1997 by Antillean Rice
                                                                        Mills NV, Bonaire (Netherlands ), represented by W.
                                                                        Knibbeler and K. J. Defares, of the Amsterdam and
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        Rotterdam Bars respectively, with an address for service in
                                                                        Luxembourg at the Chambers of N. Loesch, 1 1 Rue
This case is related to the judgment of the Court of First              Goethe .
Instance of 14 September 1995 in Joined Cases T-480/93
and T-483/93 Antillean Rice Mills NV and Others v.
Commission of the European Communities [ 1995] ECR II­                  The applicant claims that the Court should :
2305 . The Commission has introduced new safeguard
measures on account of persisting difficulties on the
market in rice, which the applicant is now challenging.                 — annul Council Regulation ( EC ) No 304/97 of
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as                         17 February 1997 introducing safeguard measures in
those adduced in the abovementioned cases .
                                                                            respect of imports of rice originating in the overseas
                                                                            countries and territories ('),
(') OJ No L 5 , 9 . 1 . 1997, p . 24 .
                                                                        — order the Council to pay the costs .
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Action brought on 27 February 1997 by Antillean Rice
     Mills NV against the Council of the European Union                 By Regulation ( EC ) No 304/97, the Council repealed
                           ( Case T-4 1/97)                             Commission Regulation ( EC) No 21 /97, yet nevertheless
                             ( 97/C 108/46 )
                                                                        adopted the same substantive provisions . The pleas in law
                                                                        and the main arguments are the same as those in Case
                                                                        T-26/97 Antillean Rice Mills NV v. Commission of the
                 (Language of the case: Dutch)                          European Communities, in which annulment is sought of
                                                                        Regulation ( EC ) No 21 /97.
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European              O OJ No L 51 , 21 . 2 . 1997, p . 1 .