CELEX: C1999/281/54
Language: en
Date: 1999-10-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-179/99: Action brought on 6 August 1999 by the company Sud Pesca against the Commission of the European Communities

2.10.1999              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 281/29
Action brought on 6 August 1999 by the company                            Action brought on 6 August 1999 by Vassilios Tsarnavas
Sud Pesca against the Commission of the European                            against the Commission of the European Communities
                          Communities
                                                                                                   (Case T-180/99)
                         (Case T-179/99)
                                                                                                  (1999/C 281/55)
                         (1999/C 281/54)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: French)
                   (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 6 August 1999 by Vassilios
                                                                          Tsarnavas, residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas Lhoëst,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.
European Communities on 6 August 1999 by the company
Sud Pesca, represented by Gianfranco Amenta and Massimo
Merola, of the Palermo and Rome Bars, with an address for                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Alain Lorang, 51
Rue Albert 1er.
                                                                          — annul the implicit decision of the Commission rejecting
                                                                              the complaint lodged by the applicant under Article 90(2)
                                                                              of the Staff Regulations by which he contested first, the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   implicit rejection of his request for rectification of his
                                                                              administrative status as regards the date on which the
— annul the contested decision;                                               Commission’s decision concerning his reassignment took
                                                                              effect, and, second, the list of officials promoted to grade
— order the Commission to pay the costs of the present                        A 4, published in ‘Administrative Notices’ No 1049 of
    action, including the applicant’s legal costs.                            30 October 1998, in which his name did not appear;
                                                                          — consequently, order that the 1998 procedure for pro-
                                                                              motion to grade A 4 is to be annulled as regards the
                                                                              applicant;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
The applicant contests the decision of 24 April 1999, Ref.
SG(99)D/2842, by which the Commission rejected an appli-
cation for exemption from post-clearance recovery, alterna-               Pleas in law and main arguments
tively, for remission, of customs duties relating to two
consignments of tuna imported from Turkey under IM4
certificates nos 356/N dated 22 June 1994 and 193/U dated                 The applicant, a grade A 5 official of the Commission of the
29 May 1995.                                                              European Communities, was seconded, as Vice-President of
                                                                          the local Staff Committee, from DG IV to the Staff Represen-
                                                                          tation unit attached to DG IX. On 2 July 1997 the Commission
In support of its claim, the applicant argues that the Com-               decided to reassign the applicant to DG IV with retroactive
mission breached and wrongly applied Article 220(2)(b)                    effect from 1 May 1997. That decision was not notified to the
and Article 239 of the Community Customs Code. In this                    applicant until 21 October 1997, on which date he resumed
connection, the applicant is of the view that the Turkish                 his duties in DG IV. On 30 October 1998 the administration
authorities, even after the checks carried out by the Community           published in ‘Administrative Notices’ No 1049 the list of
delegation in June 1996, confirmed the validity of the ATR.1              officials promoted to grade A 4, in which the applicant’s name
certificates issued. Even if it were possible that those authorities      did not appear.
issued the certificates of origin in error, such an error could be
characterised as being a ‘substantive error’.
                                                                          In support of his application, the applicant advances the
                                                                          following pleas:
The applicant maintains, inter alia, that there is in the present
                                                                          — absence of a statement of reasons;
case a ‘special situation’ and that no fraud or obvious
negligence can be imputed to it.
                                                                          — delay on the part of the Commission in sending to the
                                                                              applicant the decision concerning his reassignment;
                                                                          — breach of the principle of non-retroactivity and misuse of
                                                                              powers;