CELEX: C1999/281/38
Language: en
Date: 1999-10-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-160/99: Action brought on 8 July 1999 by Gunnar Svantesson and Others against the Council of the European Union

2.10.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 281/19
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          — declare that the applicant has been suffering from total
                                                                             permanent invalidity, making it impossible for him to
                                                                             carry out the duties corresponding to a post in his career
The applicant entered the service of the General Secretariat of              bracket, from 23 September 1998, the date of his request
the Council as a grade C 5 official on 1 November 1995.                      that he be treated as suffering from invalidity, or such
During the 1998 promotions procedure, the list of officials                  other date as the Court may determine;
eligible for promotion and the number of posts to be filled by
way of promotion were published by Staff Notice No 140/98                — order that an expert medical opinion be sought in order to
on 5 November 1998. Amongst the 124 officials eligible for                   determine whether the applicant is suffering from total
promotion from grade C 5, the applicant was in 43rd place in                 invalidity;
order of seniority, out of all the grade C 5 officials having
the requisite seniority under the Staff Regulations. Upon                — make such ruling as to costs as may be appropriate.
completion of the work of the advisory committee on category
C promotions, a list of officials proposed for promotion to
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
grade C 4, containing 38 names was sent to the appointing
authority, which decided to act on it. The applicant’s name did
not appear on that list.                                                 By note dated 23 September 1998 the applicant submitted a
                                                                         request for the grant to him of an invalidity pension. In
                                                                         consequence of that request, the administration of the Court
In support of her application, the applicant pleads:                     of Auditors referred the matter to the Invalidity Committee,
                                                                         which concluded that the applicant was not suffering from
— infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and                any complaint which could be regarded as total permanent
     failure to provide statement of reasons;                            invalidity making it impossible for his to perform his duties.
                                                                         The appointing authority of the Court of Auditors, noting that
— infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations;                   decision, rejected his request that he be retired on grounds of
— failure properly to carry out the promotions procedure;                invalidity.
— failure to observe the principle of equal treatment; and               In support of his application, the applicant maintains:
— manifest error of assessment.                                          — that his current state of health shows that the sick leave
                                                                             proposed by the Invalidity Committee has not brought
                                                                             about an improvement in his health;
                                                                         — that the various medical certificates obtained from several
                                                                             specialists show that the treatment received at the Mondorf
                                                                             health spa has had no palpable result, that no significant
                                                                             improvement is to be expected in the applicant’s physical
                                                                             condition and moreover, that, from an osteoarticular and
                                                                             spinal standpoint, the applicant needs beyond all doubt to
Action brought on 7 July 1999 by Bjarne Christiansen                         be retired from his duties on grounds of invalidity;
                 against the Court of Auditors
                                                                         — that the decision of the Invalidity Committee should be
                                                                             reviewed, having regard to a new medical certificate dated
                         (Case T-159/99)                                     10 May 1999 concluding that the treatment has not
                                                                             improved the applicant’s muscular condition.
                         (1999/C 281/37)
                   (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Court of Auditors was brought before               Action brought on 8 July 1999 by Gunnar Svantesson
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                 and Others against the Council of the European Union
7 July 1999 by Bjarne Christiansen, residing at Nittel (Ger-
many), represented by Alain Lorang, of the Luxembourg Bar,                                       (Case T-160/99)
with an address for service in Luxembourg at his Chambers,
51 Rue Albert 1er.                                                                               (1999/C 281/38)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                 (Language of the case: French)
— find that new factors have arisen since the Invalidity
     Committee adopted its decision on 30 October 1998;                  An action against the Council of the European Union was
                                                                         brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
— declare that the action brought by the applicant against               Communities on 8 July 1999 by Gunnar Svantesson, Monica
     the decision of the European Court of Auditors of 7 April           Hägg and Lena Hellsten, residing in Brussels, represented by
     1999, by which it rejected the complaint lodged against             Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liège Bar (Belgium), with an address
     the decision adopted by the appointing authority of the             for service at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL 30 Rue de
     Court of Auditors on 26 November 1998, is well founded;             Cessange.
 ---pagebreak--- C 281/20               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        2.10.1999
The applicants claim that the Court should:                             Action brought on 8 July 1999 by the company Naviga-
                                                                        zione Libera del Golfo against the Commission of the
— order, by way of measures of inquiry, the production of all                               European Communities
    documents relating to the work done by the selection
    board, including the tests, and the taking of evidence from
    Mr Fischer Holm, Mr Merilla and Mr Welander and the                                          (Case T-161/99)
    other candidates in the competition;
                                                                                                (1999/C 281/39)
— annul all the steps taken in the competition;
— annul the decisions of the selection board in competition
    LA/62 not to admit the applicants to the oral test and not                             (Language of the case: Italian)
    to mark their optional tests;
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
— annul the Council’s decision of 8 April 1999 rejecting the            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
    administrative complaint lodged by the applicants on                European Communities on 8 July 1999 by the company
    8 December 1998;                                                    Navigazione Libera del Golfo, represented by Salvatore Raven-
                                                                        na and Emiliano Amato, of the Naples and Rome Bars, with
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                 an address for service in Massalubrense (NA) at the chambers
                                                                        of S. Ravenna, 2 Corso S. Agata.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        — declare that the Commission has failed to fulfil its obli-
The applicants, all of whom are Swedish nationals and grade                  gations under Article 93 of the EC Treaty (now Article 88
LA 7 officials of the Council, took part in the Council’s internal           EC) by failing to adopt a decision on the complaint made
competition LA/62 based on tests, which was held with a view                 by the applicant on 20 February 1999 concerning aid
to filling three LA 5 posts of reviser/principal translator                  granted to the undertaking CA.RE.MAR (Napoli) by the
(Swedish mother tongue). By letter of 9 September 1998 the                   Italian Government;
selection board informed the applicants that it had decided not
to admit them to the oral test, on the ground that they had             — order the Commission to bear the applicant’s costs.
not obtained at least 60 % of the maximum marks provided
for by the competition notice in respect of the revision test.
Consequently, the optional tests which they had done were               Pleas in law and main arguments
not marked.
                                                                        The applicant in the present case is a maritime transport
In support of their application, the applicants plead:                  company operating high speed vessels (hydroplanes and
                                                                        catamarans) serving the islands in the Bay of Naples. It
— infringement of Article 3 of Annex III to the Staff Regu-             challenges the system of State aid introduced by Law No 684
    lations and failure to observe the principles of objectivity        of 20 December 1974 in so far as it relates specifically to
    and equality in the assessment of the candidates, first, in         CA.RE.MAR., the only company operating in the Bay of Naples
    that no member of the selection board had a perfect                 which benefits from such aid.
    knowledge of the target language, namely Swedish, and,
    second, in that the members of the selection board did not
    have a perfect command of the source languages, in                  According to the applicant, the subsidies in question are
    particular French and English, alternatively that an insuf-         unlimited and are intended to make up the operating losses
    ficient number of them possessed such a command;                    which the recipient — a public concern — registers every year;
                                                                        the result being that the aid enables the company to escape
— infringement of the essential rules governing the work of             bankruptcy which would otherwise be inevitable. In addition,
    the selection boeard and failure to observe the principle of        the aid in question is operating aid, which is clearly inconsistent
    equal treatment, inasmuch as two assessors lacked a perfect         with the Commission Communication on Community guide-
    command of all the source languages;                                lines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in
                                                                        difficulty (1) and the Community guidelines on State aid to
— infringement of the essential rules governing the work of             maritime transport (2).
    the selection board and failure to observe the principle of
    objectivity in the assessment of candidates, such that the
    assessors, who were colleagues of the applicants, were able         On this point, it is asserted that, between 1992 and 1997, the
    to penetrate the anonymity attaching to the papers;                 amount of aid has averaged something in the region of ITL
                                                                        40 billion, whereas revenue from ticket sales is just a little over
— failure to comply with the competition notice, in that the            50 % of that figure.
    selection board instructed the assessors to allow only a
    limited number of candidates to proceed to take the oral            The applicant submitted its complaint on 20 February 1999.
    test;                                                               Because of the particular urgency of the matter, in the
                                                                        complaint itself the applicant requested the defendant to take
— irregularity in the composition of the selection board.               action within the period of two months laid down in
                                                                        Article 175 of the EC Treaty (now Article 232). Since no
                                                                        decision was adopted within that period, the applicant brought
                                                                        the present action.