CELEX: C2000/302/71
Language: en
Date: 2000-10-21 00:00:00
Title: Case T-207/00: Action brought on 8 August 2000 by Nuno Antas de Campos against European Parliament

C 302/30              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    21.10.2000
The applicant puts forward four pleas in law.                          Action brought on 8 August 2000 by Nuno Antas de
                                                                                   Campos against European Parliament
First plea in law: infringement of an essential procedural
requirement within the meaning of Article 173 of the EC Trea-                                   (Case T-207/00)
ty (now, after amendment, Article 230 EC):
Contrary to Article 16 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure,                                  (2000/C 302/71)
in the version applicable at the material time, the decision was
not signed by the Commission Member responsible and by an
authorised agent of the Commission’s Secretary-General.
                                                                                        (Language of the case: Portuguese)
Second plea in law: infringement and/or misapplication of
Articles 905 to 909 of Commission Regulation No 2454/93                An action against the European Parliament was brought before
laying down provisions for the implementation of the Com-              the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
munity Customs Code, and infringement of the principle of              8 August 2000 by Nuno Antas de Campos, residing in Lisbon,
legal certainty:                                                       represented by Carlos Botelho Moniz, of the Lisbon Bar.
The decision was adopted on 4 February 1998, but it was not
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
until 6 June 2000, that is to say, 28 months later, that the
customs authorities brought it to the applicant’s attention.
                                                                       —     declare unlawful the ‘Rules on the implementation of the
                                                                             mobility policy’, adopted by the Bureau of the European
Third plea in law: infringement and/or misapplication of
                                                                             Parliament on 16 December 1998;
Article 220(2)(b) of Regulation No 2913/92 establishing the
Community Customs Code:
                                                                       —     annul the decision communicated to him by letter
                                                                             No 107854 of 30 March 2000 by the Directorate General
Under that provision, subsequent entry in the accounts is not                of Personnel, according to which he is subject to the
to take place where the amount of duty legally owed failed to                scheme for 2000;
be entered in the accounts as a result of an error on the part of
the customs authorities which could not reasonably have been
detected by the person liable for payment, the latter for his          —     order the defendant institution to pay the costs.
part having acted in good faith.
This matter was the subject of lengthy discussions between the         Pleas in law and main arguments
Turkish authorities and the European Commission.
The matter has been fully resolved since 1994, inasmuch as             The applicant has brought an action under Article 91(4) of the
the Turkish authorities have brought their export provisions           Staff Regulations of the European Communities against the
into line with the wishes expressed by the Commission.                 decision communicated to him by means of letter No 107854
                                                                       of 30 March 2000 from the Directorate General for Personnel,
                                                                       of the European Parliament, according to which he is subject
Article 220 of the Community Customs Code is not confined              to the mobility scheme for the year 2000.
to errors on the part of the customs authorities of the Member
States of the European Union. Errors made by the customs
authorities of non-member countries coming within the scope            The applicant claims that the contested measure:
of agreements entered into with the European Union must
also fall under that provision.
                                                                       —     Breaches the principle of legal certainty
Fourth plea in law: infringement and/or misapplication of
Article 239 of the Community Customs Code:                                   The assurance that Lisbon would be the place where he
                                                                             would undertake the duties for which he was recruited
                                                                             was, for the applicant, an essential element in his decision
According to the applicant, the Commission has wrongly                       to accept the offer of employment made to him by the
overlooked the fact that the present constitutes an exceptional              European Parliament.
case within the meaning of Article 239 of the Community
Customs Code, as elaborated in Article 905 of Regulation
No 2454/93, resulting from circumstances in which no decep-                  The Parliament must honour the promises it made as to
tion or obvious negligence may be attributed to the persons                  the place where the applicant was to undertake the duties
concerned.                                                                   for which he was recruited if it is not to be in breach of
                                                                             the principle of legitimate expectations.
                                                                       —     Breaches the principle that laws are not retroactive
 ---pagebreak--- 21.10.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 302/31
      For the Bureau of the European Parliament now to apply             The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
      in respect of the applicant the ‘Rules’ of 16 December             put forward by Biret International in Case T-174/00.
      1998 is tantamount to an attempt to alter twelve years
      after their implementation the rules and conditions
      applicable to the competition on the basis of which the
      applicant was recruited to carry out (specifically) the
      duties of Head of the Information Service in Lisbon. By
      doing so, the principle of the non-retroactivity of laws
      has been breached.
                                                                         Action brought on 11 August 2000 by Nuove Industrie
                                                                         Molisane s.r.l. against the Commission of the European
—     Breaches the principle of legality
                                                                                                    Communities
      Adoption of rules with the scope of the ‘Rules on the
      implementation of the mobility policy’ amounts to a                                          (Case T-212/00)
      veritable amendment of the Staff Regulations which
      exceeds the powers of the Parliament to define and                                          (2000/C 302/73)
      implement its staff policy under the provisions of the
      Staff Regulations.
                                                                                            (Language of the Case: Italian)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 11 August 2000 by Nuove Indus-
                                                                         trie Molisane s.r.l., represented by Ivo Van Bael, of the Brussels
                                                                         Bar, and Fabrizio Di Gianni, of the Rome Bar.
Action brought on 10 August 2000 by Etablissements
  Biret et Cie against the Council of the European Union                 The applicant company claims that the Court should:
                         (Case T-210/00)                                 —     Annul the contested decision in so far as the Commission
                                                                               applied the adjustment factor of 0,75 to the competition
                                                                               assessment criterion, instead of the proposed factor of 1;
                         (2000/C 302/72)
                                                                         —     Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings;
                   (Language of the case: French)                        —     Adopt any other such measure as may appear appropriate
                                                                               on legal and equitable grounds.
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Communities on 10 August 2000 by Etablissements Biret et
Cie, established in Paris, represented by Stéphane Rodrigues,
of the Paris Bar.                                                        The applicant in the present case, which is a limited-liability
                                                                         company consisting of a single person, established in Sesto
                                                                         Campano, which is an assisted area for the purposes of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Article 87(3)(c) EC, challenges Commission Decision
                                                                         SG(2000)D/103923 of 30 May 2000 (State Aid No N 787/99)
—     establish the liability of the European Community in the           concerning a project for regional investment aid in favour of
      court-supervised liquidation of the applicant’s subsidiary,        the applicant, as defined in the Commission notice on the
      the company known as Biret International;                          multisectoral framework on regional aid for large investment
                                                                         projects.
—     order the Council of the European Union to pay to the
      applicant damages in the sum of FRF 70 630 850;
                                                                         The object of the subsidised project is to establish a plant for
                                                                         the production of clinker (the basic material used in the
—     order the Council of the European Union to pay all the             manufacture of water-activated binders), which the applicant
      costs.                                                             is at present lacking.
                                                                         The aid in question has been declared partially compatible
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         with the common market. The applicant submits in this regard
                                                                         that the Commission’s decision to use, in the formula for
The applicant claims compensation for the loss and damage                determining the maximum allowable aid intensity, the figure
arising from the court-supervised liquidation of its subsidiary,         of 0,75 as the adjustment factor for the competition assess-
Biret International, which has been forced to cease trading as           ment criterion, and consequently to declare compatible only
a result of the prohibition of imports into the Community of             the amount of ITL 29 176,69 million, is vitiated on the
beef and veal, especially of American origin.                            following grounds: