CELEX: C1995/087/30
Language: en
Date: 1995-04-08 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 20 January 1995 by BP Chemicals Limited against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-11/95)

8 . 4 . 95             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 87/ 13
pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (IV/32.031 —                  Jean-Marc Florand, of the Paris Bar v. Commission of the
Auditel ) (2) — the Court of First Instance (Enlarged Fourth          European Communities (Agents: G. Marenco and W. Wils )
Chamber ), composed of K. Lenaerts, President, and R.                 — application for ( 1 ) suspension of operation of the
Schintgen, C. P. Briet, R. Garcfa-Valdecasas, H. Kirschner            decisions said to be contained in the Commission's letters of
and C. W. Bellamy, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an                20 September, 5 October and 26 October 1994 in which it
order on 6 February 1995 , the operative part of which is as          rejected the applicant's complaint concerning alleged
follows:                                                              anti-competitive practices by various undertakings said to
                                                                      have caused an increase in the tenancy costs borne by the
1 . leave is granted to D & B Marketing Information                   residents of Square d'Auvergne and ( 2 ) an order that the
     Services to intervene in support of the form of order            Community pay the applicant an advance of ECU 150 000
     sought be the defendant;                                         in respect of irrecoverable costs vexatiously caused on
                                                                      account of the costs to be awarded in the main proceedings
2. the request for confidential treatment in relation to the          — the President of the Court of First Instance has made an
     intervener is granted as regards the whole of Annex 20           order on 16 February 1995 , in which:
     to the application and to the following extent as regards
     Annex I to the application:                                      1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed;
     — the notification (form A/B and the Annex thereto)
         will be disclosed to the intervener with the exception       2 . the costs are reserved.
          of those items which have been obscured in the
          version of that document appended to this order,
     — Annexes 1,2,4 and 5 to the notification will not be
          disclosed to the intervener,
     — the request for confidential treatment is rejected as
          regards the remainder, namely Annexes 3 and 6 to            Action brought on 20 January 1995 by BP Chemicals
          the notification;                                           Limited against the Commission of the European
                                                                                               Communities
3 . the registrar shall serve a non-confidential version of the                               (Case T-ll/95 )
     documents in the case on the intervener;
                                                                                               ( 95/C 87/30 )
4. a period shall be prescribed within which the intervener
     must set out in writing its pleas in support ofthe form of                       (Language of the case: English)
     order which it seeks;
5 . D 8>cB 's request to derogate from the rules on the use of        An action against the Commission of the European
     languages is rejected as regards the written                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
     procedure;                                                       Instance of the European Communities on 20 January 1995
                                                                      by BP Chemicals Limited, represented by J. E. Flynn,
                                                                      Solicitor of Linklaters & Paines, Brussels, with an address
6 . D 8c B is granted leave to use English during the oral            for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch &
     procedure;                                                       Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe.
7. the costs are reserved.
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
(!) OJ No C 90, 26 . 3 . 1994 .
(2 ) OJ No L 306, 11 . 12 . 1993 , p . 50.                            (a ) annul the decision of the Commission under the EC
                                                                            Treaty's State aid rules concerning three capital
                                                                            injections to Enichem SpA ( 1 ); and
                                                                      ( b ) order the Commission to pay the costs of this
                ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT                                      action.
           OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                      of 16 February 1995                             Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
in Case T-5/95 R: Amicale des Résidents du Square
d'Auvergne v. Commission of the European                              The applicant maintains that the contested decision should
                          Communities
                                                                      be annulled on substantive and procedural grounds and that
                           ( 95/C 87/29                               its reasoning is inadequate. Specifically, it considers that the
                                                                      Commission erred :
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                      — in finding the first two injections compatible with the
In Case T-5/95 R: Amicale des Résidents du Square                          common market, thereby committing a manifest error of
d'Auvergne, established at Massy, France, represented by                   assessment going beyond the scope of its discretion
 ---pagebreak---  No C 87/14            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      8 . 4 . 95
     under Article 92 ( 3 ) (c), and acting in a manner              — annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision of the
     inconsistent with its own guidelines on restructuring of             Commission of 19 October 1994 expressly rejecting his
     firms in difficulty,                                                 complaint,
— in holding, contrary to Article 92 ( 1 ), that the third           — order the Commission to pay the costs .
    injection did not constitute State aid, through a
    misapplication of the 'private investor' criterion in a
    manner which is inconsistent with its own guidelines and         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    with the behaviour of a true private investor, Union
    Carbide Corporation,                                             The applicant, an official of the Commission in the LA
                                                                     career bracket, contests the decision of the appointing
                                                                     authority classifying him in grade LA 5 , step 1 , in
— in failing to open Article 93 (2 ) proceedings in respect of       consequence of his reinstatement on 1 April 1994 in his
    the third injection, thereby depriving the parties               original service following his secondment, at his own
    concerned of their procedural guarantees under                   request, to the European Centre for the Development of
    Article 93 (2 ) and ( 3 ) as interpreted in the Court's          Vocational Training ( Cedefop ) for a period of seven
    consistent case-law,                                             years .
— in failing to verify and monitor the information and               He points out in that regard that, during that secondment
    proposals put to it by the Italian authorities, thereby          period, he passed a competition held with a view to the
    failing to apply the 'private investor' test correctly and to    drawing up of a reserve list of principal translators/revisers
    ensure that alleged capacity closures had been or would          appointed to grade LA 5 , step 1 , as at 1 October 1990 .
    be made permanent and were of sufficient scale to be in          Consequently, his reinstatement in grade LA 5, step 1 , failed
    the Community interest.                                          to take account, as regards seniority in step, of the period
                                                                     during which he worked at Cedefop .
(!) OJ No C 151 , 2 . 6 . 1994 , p. 3 .                              He asserts in particular that there has been an infringement
                                                                     of the provisions of the Staff Regulations relating to
                                                                     secondment and, more especially, of Article 37 of the Staff
                                                                     Regulations, inasmuch as that Article provides that an
                                                                     official on secondment is to continue to enjoy all his rights
                                                                     under the conditions contained in Articles 38 and 39 . He
                                                                     states in that regard that Article 39 of the Staff Regulations,
                                                                     which governs the secondment of an official at his own
                                                                     request, contains no specific rules as to his right to
                                                                     advancement and his eligibility for promotion. Since that
Action brought on 2 February 1995 by Nuno Do Paqo                   Article constitutes a provision derogating from the ordinary
Quesado against the Commission of the European                       rules, it must be strictly interpreted.
                           Communities
                          (Case T-15/95 )                            It follows that, since officials who are seconded at their own
                           (95/C 87/31 )                             request are not expressly excluded by that provision, they
                                                                    must continue to enjoy the right to automatic advancement
                                                                     in step. To apply any contrary interpretation would be to
                (Language of the case: French)                       disregard the principle of 'career continuity'.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 2 February 1995
by Nuno Do Vaqo Quesado, residing in Trier ( Germany),
represented by Jean-Noel Louis and Veronique Leclercq, of
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg         Action brought on 7 February 1995 by SA Adia Interim
at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener.               against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                             (Case T-19/95 )
                                                                                               ( 95/C 87/32 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                     (Language of the case: French)
— annul the decision of the Commission of 1 March 1994
    inasmuch as it classifies the applicant in grade LA 5, step
    1 , with seniority in grade and in step from 1 April            An action against the Commission of the European
    1994,                                                           Communities was brought before the Court of First