CELEX: C1999/366/61
Language: en
Date: 1999-12-18 00:00:00
Title: Case T-201/99: Action brought on 9 September 1999 by Royal Olympic Cruises Ltd, Valentine Oceanic Trading Inc., Caroline Shipping Inc., Simpson Navigation Ltd, Solar Navigation Corporation, Ocean Quest Sea Carriers Ltd, Athena 2004 SA, Elliniki Etairia Diipirotikon Grammon AE and Freewind Shipping Company against the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities

C 366/28               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                    18.12.1999
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                               office is in Piraeus, Greece, represented by Nikolaos Skandamis,
                           INSTANCE                                        of the Athens Bar, and Andreas Potamianos of the Piraeus Bar,
                                                                           with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                         of 16 July 1999                                   Stéphan Le Goueff, 9 Avenue Guillaume, L-1651 Luxembourg.
in Case T-143/99 R: Hortiplant SAT v Commission of the                     The applicants claim that the Court should:
                    European Communities
                                                                           — grant their application in its entirety;
           (Procedure for interim relief — Urgency)
                                                                           — declare that, by collaborating in acts of the European
                                                                               Union which are unlawful under international law, the
                        (1999/C 366/60)
                                                                               Council of the European Union and the Commission of
                                                                               the European Communities have offended against the
                                                                               fundamental Community law principle of the protection
                  (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                               of legitimate expectations in the field of the freedom
                                                                               to provide maritime transport services and maritime
In Case T-143/99 R: Hortiplant SAT, whose registered office is                 recreational services;
at Amposta, (Spain), represented by Concepción Fernández
Vicien, of the Barcelona Bar, and Eva Contreras Ynzenga, of the            — award the applicants USD 73 963 000 in damages under
Madrid Bar, Cuatrecasas Chambers, 78 Avenue d’Auderghem,                       Article 235 EC and the second paragraph of Article 288
1040 Brussels, against Commission of the European Com-                         EC.
munities (Agent: Juan Guerra Fernández) — application for
suspension of operation of Commission Decision C (1999)
537 of 4 March 1999 withdrawing Community aid granted
— the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First                Pleas in law and main arguments
Instance made an order on 16 July 1999, the operative part of
which reads as follows:                                                    Admissibility of the action
1. The application for interim relief is dismissed.                        A. Legal interest in bringing proceedings
2. Costs are reserved.
                                                                           B. Exhaustion of domestic remedies
                                                                           Merits of the action
                                                                           A. Unlawful measures and conduct
                                                                           1. Unlawful conduct of the Member States of the European
Action brought on 9 September 1999 by Royal Olympic
                                                                               Union which are also members of NATO
Cruises Ltd, Valentine Oceanic Trading Inc., Caroline
Shipping Inc., Simpson Navigation Ltd, Solar Navigation
Corporation, Ocean Quest Sea Carriers Ltd, Athena 2004                     2. Unlawful conduct of the European Union
SA, Elliniki Etairia Diipirotikon Grammon AE and Free-
wind Shipping Company against the Council of the                               a) Collaboration of the European Union in the armed
European Union and the Commission of the European                                   intervention against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
                          Communities                                               as autonomous conduct which is unlawful under
                                                                                    international and European Union law
                        (Case T-201/99)
                                                                               b) Legal liability of the European Union resulting from
                                                                                    the unlawful obligations assumed by its members by
                        (1999/C 366/61)                                             virtue of decisions of the North Atlantic Council
                                                                           3. Unlawful conduct of the European Community
                   (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                               a) Conduct for which the European Community is vicari-
An action against the Council of the European Union and the                         ously liable
Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                 b) Autonomous unlawful conduct of the European Com-
on 9 September 1999 by Royal Olympic Cruises Ltd, Valentine                         munity
Oceanic Trading Inc., Caroline Shipping Inc., Simpson Navi-
gation Ltd, Solar Navigation Corporation, Ocean Quest Sea                           (i) Infringement of a superior rule of law for the
Carriers Ltd, Athena 2004 SA and Freewind Shipping Com-                                  protection of individuals
pany whose registered offices are in Monrovia, Liberia, and
Elliniki Etairia Diipirotikon Grammon AE, whose registered                          (ii) Sufficiently serious breach
 ---pagebreak--- 18.12.1999            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 366/29
Harm                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments
1. Loss of income due to cancelled and lost bookings                    The applicant contests the finding that her absences were
                                                                        unlawful, submitting that:
    a) Cancelled bookings
                                                                        — the Council infringed Article 59(3) of the Staff Regulations
    b) Lost bookings                                                         in refusing to request the Invalidity Committee to deter-
                                                                             mine the validity of the medical certificates submitted by
                                                                             the applicant as evidence that her absences were caused by
2. Loss of income by reason of reduction of the price of the                 illness; and
    services offered
                                                                        — the Council is in breach of its obligations to give reasons
3. Harm resulting from the increased burden on the budget                    for its decisions and to respect the rights of the defence, in
    for financing the construction of new ships, by reasony of               that it has failed to produce any information of a medical
    interest due on additional borrowing                                     nature which would enable the doctor treating the appli-
                                                                             cant to understand the reasons which have led the medical
4. Lower profits by reason of loss of income in future seasons               officers checking the certificates submitted to question
    and of clientele.                                                        their validity.
                                                                        As regards the disciplinary action, the applicant points out
                                                                        that this was taken following her refusal to undergo periodical
                                                                        medical examinations. She emphasises in this connection that
                                                                        she was acting on the advice of her own doctor who believed
                                                                        that such examinations might have a deleterious effect on her
                                                                        health, a view which, according to the applicant, was recently
                                                                        confirmed by the Invalidity Committee’s decision of 23 March
                                                                        1999 finding her definitively incapable of performing her
Action brought on 30 September 1999 by Gitte Rasmus-                    duties in view of the seriousness of the illness afflicting her.
         sen against Council of the European Union                      The applicant argues that she is not in breach, therefore, of the
                                                                        Staff Regulations and that, consequently, the decision to take
                       (Case T-221/99)                                  disciplinary action lacks legal foundation and, at the very least,
                                                                        is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment.
                       (1999/C 366/62)
                                                                        Lastly, the applicant maintains that, by requiring her to
                                                                        undergo medical examinations deleterious to her health, the
                                                                        Council acted in dereliction of its duty on a number of counts,
                  (Language of the case: French)                        thereby incurring liability.
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 30 September 1999 by Gitte Rasmussen,
residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Greta-
Françoise Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of
Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.                              Action brought on 5 October 1999 by Jean-Claude Marti-
                                                                        nez and Charles de Gaulle against the European Parliament
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                                  (Case T-222/99)
— annul the Council decision declaring that the applicant’s
    absences between 28 September 1998 and 18 March 1999                                          (1999/C 366/63)
    were unlawful;
— annul the Council’s decision to issue the applicant with a                                 (Language of the case: French)
    written warning by way of disciplinary action;
                                                                        An action against the European Parliament was brought before
— order the Council to make a token payment to the                      the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
    applicant of one euro by way of compensation for the                on 5 October 1999 by Jean-Claude Martinez, residing at
    non-physical damage suffered;                                       Montpellier (France), and Charles de Gaulle, residing in Paris,
                                                                        represented by François Wagner, of the Nice Bar, 2 Rue de la
— order the Council to pay the costs.                                   Poissonnerie, Nice.