CELEX: C1995/286/37
Language: en
Date: 1995-10-28 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 8 August 1995 by LPN - Liga para a Protecção da Natureza, and by GEOTA - Grupo de Estudos do Ordenamento do Território e do Ambiente, against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-155/95)

28 . 10 . 95           KN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 286/ 15
European Communities ( Agents : Francisco Gonzalez Diaz               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
and Géraud de Bergues ) — application for the annulment of
Commission Decision 94/893/EC of 21 June 1994 declaring               The applicant, who is employed by the United Kingdom
a concentration to be compatible with the common market               Atomic Energy Authority ( UKAEA ) and the JET Joint
and the functioning of the EEA Agreement ( IV/M.430 —                 Undertaking, as a senior member of the JET project team, as
Procter & Gamble/VP Schickedanz ( II ), OJ No L 354, p. 32 )          well as one of the applicants in Case T- 177/94 Altmann and
— the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber, Extended               Others, challenges the Commission's decision refusing him
Composition ), composed of J. L. Cruz Vilaça , President,             the possibility of changing his employment from the
and D. P. M. Barrington , A. Saggio , H. Kirschner and A.             UKAEA to the Commission itself, in accordance with
Kalogeropoulos , Judges ; H. Jung, Registrar, has made an             Article 8 of the JET Statutes .
order on 16 August 1995 , in which it :
                                                                      The current application derives from the requirement,
 1 . rejects the request by Procter & Gamble GmbH for a               imposed by that article, that where staff are 'made available
     derogation from the rules governing languages in so far          by the Members of the JET Joint Undertaking other than the
     as it concerns the written procedure;                            host organization' and 'recruited by the Commission for
                                                                      temporary posts' the member in question ' shall undertake to
2 . grants the request of Procter & Gamble GmbH to use                re-employ the staff whom it placed at the disposal of the
     English in the oral procedure;                                   Project (. . .) as soon as the work of such staff on the Project
                                                                      has been completed'. This requirement having been
3.   reserves its decision as to costs .                              systematically interpreted by the Commission to mean that
                                                                      all temporary employees of the Commission working at JET
(') O J No C 316 , 12 . 11 . 1994 .                                   are required to obtain a 'return ticket' from a member of JET
                                                                      other than UKAEA, the applicant has now obtained a
                                                                      ' return ticket ' from the Swedish National Science Research
                                                                      Council , a member of JET, via an offer of employment from
                                                                      the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology .
Action brought on 7 April 1995 by Peter Esmond Stott                  It is fundamental to the applicant's case that since 1987 the
   against the Commission of the European Communities                 Commission, and the JET management generally, have
                         ( Case T-99/95 )                             failed to take any proper account of their obligations
                           ( 95/C 286/36 )                            towards the UKAF1A employees of JET and have in fact
                                                                      acted deliberately against the interests of those persons, so
                                                                      that this application raises issues closely related to those
                (Language of the case: English)                       raised in Case T-177/94 Altmann and Others .
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 7 April 1995 by
Peter Esmond Stott, represented by Kenneth Parker and
Rhodri Thompson , with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Cabinet Elvinger, Hoss and Prussen, 15              Action brought on 8 August 1995 by LPN — Liga para a
Cote d'Eich .                                                         Protecção da Natureza, and by GEOTA — Grupo de
                                                                      Estudos do Ordenamento do Territorio e do Ambiente,
                                                                         against the Commission of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                                              ( Case T-155/95 )
— annul the Commission 's decision of 28 December 1994                                          ( 95/C 286/37 )
     addressed to the applicant,
                                                                                     (Language of the case: Portuguese)
— order the Commission to direct the Director of the JET
     Joint Undertaking to take steps necessary to enable the
     applicant to become a temporary employee of the                  An action against the Commission of the European
     Commission in accordance with Article 8 ( 5 ) of the              Communities was brought before the Court of First
     Statutes of the JET Joint Undertaking without requiring          Instance of the European Communities on 8 August 1995 by
     the applicant first to vacate his current post at JET or to       LPN — Liga para a Protecção de Natureza, whose registered
     apply for any other post at JET,                                 office is at 187 Estrada do Calhariz de Benfica , Lisbon,
                                                                      represented by Agostinho Pereira de Miranda, Rui
— order the Commission to pay compensation to the                     Amendoeira and Paula Gomes Freire, of the Lisbon Bar, and
     applicant in relation to the difference in his terms and         whose chambers are at 27 Ave. Antonio de Aguiar, 2nd Floor
     conditions of employment resulting from the failure of            Rt. , Lisbon, and by GEOTA — Grupo de Estudos do
     the Director of JET to act on the letter addressed to the         Ordenamento do Territorio e do Ambiente, whose
     JET Director from the applicant dated 16 May 1994 ,               registered office is at 17 — c/v Rt., Travessa Moinho de
     and                                                               Vento, Lisbon, represented by Jose Cunhal Sendim, of the
                                                                       Lisbon Bar, and whose chambers are at 10, Ave . Afonso
— order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs .                  Costa , 11 th Floor Rt. , Lisbon.
 ---pagebreak--- No C 286/ 16          EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                28 . 10 . 95
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              adopted pursuant thereto, in particular, Article 7 of
                                                                         Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2080/83 of 20 July
                                                                         1993 .
annul Commission Decision No CF 94/ 10/65/005 of
21 December 1994 granting a contribution from the
Cohesion Fund for the project to build the New Road Bridge
over the Tagus in the Lisbon Region, Portugal .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 Action brought on 11 August 1995 by the European
                                                                    Association of Mozzarella Manufacturers and Others
                                                                      against the Commission of the European Communities
The applicants rely on the following grounds in support of
                                                                                          ( Case T-157/95 )
their application :
                                                                                             95 /C 286/38
1 . Breach of the principles and basic regulations of
     European environmental law:                                                   (Language of the case: English)
     — The consent given to the project to build the new            An action against the Commission of the European
        bridge over the Tagus is in breach of the principles        Communities was brought before the Court of First
        embodied in Council Directive 85/337/EEC of                 Instance of the European Communities on 11 August 1995
        27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of            by the European Association of Mozzarella Manufacturers
        certain public and private projects on the                  and Others, represented by Michel Waelbroeck and Jules
        environment inasmuch as the choice ( from among             Stuyck, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
        the three possible alternatives ) of location for the       Chambers of Ernest Arendt, Rue Mathias Hardt 8—10 .
        bridge was not made subject to an assessment with
        regard to the environmental impact, the indirect and        The applicants claim that the Court should:
        cumulative effects were not studied and the rules
        regarding public consultation were not complied             — annul the Commission's decision referred to in press
        with .
                                                                        release Nr. IP/95/558 , and
     — Consent to the project is also contrary to Article 6(3 )     — annul, to the extent necessary, the press release
        of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992                    IP/95/558 and the letter of Mr Legras to the applicants
        inasmuch as the assessment procedure in respect of               dated 10 July 1995 ,
        the impact of the project on the SPA ( Special
        Protection Area ) of the Tagus Estuary was not in           — in the alternative, and before takings its final decision,
        keeping with the aims of conservation .                          order the Commission to produce a copy of the Decision
                                                                         and of the decision approving the Selective Financial
     — Consent to the project also infringes Article 6 ( 4 ) of          Assistance Scheme,
        Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992
        inasmuch as it allows the Tagus SPA to be                   — order the Commission to pay the applicants' costs in this
        substantially affected without the European                      action .
        Commission having been consulted in that
        connection and without relating to human health or
        public safety, or positive consequences of primary          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
        importance for the environment. Even if it were to be
        considered that the last part of Article 6 ( 4 ) was not    The applicants, four companies involved in the manufacture
        applicable, consent is none the less contrary to the        and marketing of dairy products, and an association
        first part of that provision in view of the fact that       comprising those companies which has traditionally
        there were alternatives to the location of the bridge       represented the interests of its members in industrial
        which did not affect the SPA, the public interest in        matters, challenge the Commission decision not to raise
        the project was not justified and the necessary             objections to an aid to be granted by the Industrial
        compensatory measures were not ensured .                    Development Board of Northern Ireland to Leprino/Golden
                                                                    Vale for the establishment of a mozzarella production plant
     — The construction of the new bridge over the Tagus is         in Northern Ireland .
        contrary to Article 4 (4 ) of Directive 79/409/EEC
        inasmuch as disturbances in the SPA are not limited         The Lemprimo/Golden Vale joint venture will represent the
        to the least possible and are not strictly necessary .      largest single investment ever made in the Northern Ireland
                                                                    dairy industry and the applicants suspect that the proposed
 2 . Unlawfulness of the decision : Commission Decision No          £ 32 million plan will have a production capacity by far
     CF 94/10/65/005 is unlawful inasmuch as it is contrary         superior to the 18 000 tonnes announced .
     to the principle that programmes financed by the
     Structural Funds are required to be in keeping with the         Since the 1987 special framework for investment aid
     provisions of the treaties and with the instruments             relating to the manufacture and marketing of certain dairy