CELEX: C1996/180/78
Language: en
Date: 1996-06-22 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 22 March 1996 by Eyckeler & Malt AG against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-42/96)

22. 6 . 96          EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                              No C 180/29
Chamber), R. Garcia-Valdecasas and J. Azizi, Judges; H.                            ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT
Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 May 1996 , in                     OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
which it :                                                                               of 29 March 1996
                                                                     in Case T-24/96 R: U. v. European Centre for the
1 . Dismisses the application.                                                  Development of Vocational Training
                                                                                             ( 96/C 180/77 )
2 . Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                                   (Language of the case: German)
H OJ No C 331 , 26 . 11 . 1994 .
                                                                     In Case T-24/96 R: U, an official of the European Centre for
                                                                     the Development of Vocational Training, residing in Berlin,
                                                                     represented by Frank Montag, Rechtsanwalt, Brussels, with
                                                                     an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                     Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue , v. European Centre for the
                                                                     Development of Occupational Training (Agent: Bertrand
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Wägenbaur ) — application, first, for suspension of
                                                                     operation of the defendant's decision transferring the
                        of 21 May 1996                               applicant to Thessaloniki and, second, for an order that the
in Case T-153/95 , Raymond Kaps v. Court of Justice of the           applicant's posting in the Commission's office in Berlin be
                  European Communities (*)                           maintained for the time being — the President of the Court
(Officials — Competition — Selection board — Oral test —             of First Instance made an order on 29 March 199 6 , the
Decision ofselection board not to enter the applicant on the         operative part of which is as follows :
reserve list — Scope of the duty to state reasons — Scope of
                         judicial review)
                          ( 961C 180/76 )                            1 . The suspension granted by the order of the President of
                                                                         the Court of First Instance of 29 February 1996 is
                                                                         renewed up to and including 12 April 1996. Until that
                (Language of the case: French)                           date, the applicant's posting in Berlin is to continue;
In Case T-153/95 : Raymond Kaps, an official of the Court            2 . The remainder ofthe application for interim measures is
of Justice of the European Communities, residing in                      dismissed:
Schifflange, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Thierry
Demaseure, Véronique Leclercq and Ariane Tornel, all of
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg          3.  The costs are reserved.
at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener,
against the Court of Justice of the European Communities
( Agent: Timothy Millett ) — application for the annulment
of the selection board's decisions in the internal competition
by tests No CJ 51 /93 awarding the applicant marks for his
written and oral tests which did not qualify him for entry on
the reserve list and, in so far as necessary, the annulment of
the defendant's decision not to enter the applicant on the
reserve list of Competition No CJ 51/93 and of the decision
of the complaints committee of 15 May 1995 rejecting the             Action brought on 22 March 1996 by Eyckeler & Malt AG
applicant's complaint — the Court of First Instance ( Fifth            against the Commission of the European Communities
Chamber ), composed of R. Schintgen ( President of the                                     ( Case T-42/96 )
Chamber ), R. Garcia-Valdecasas and J. Azizi , Judges; B.                                    ( 96/C 180/78 )
Pastor, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
a judgment on 21 May 1996 , in which it:
                                                                                   (Language of the case: German)
1 . Dismisses the application.
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
2 . Orders the parties to bear their own costs.                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                     Instance of the European Communities on 22 March 1 996
                                                                     by Eyckeler & Malt AG, of Hilden ( Federal Republic of
C ) OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .                                    Germany ), represented by Dietrich Ehle and Volker Schiller,
                                                                     Rechtsanwälte , Cologne, with an address for service in
                                                                     Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Lucius, 6 Rue Michel
                                                                     Welter .
 ---pagebreak---  No C 180/30          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     22 . 6 . 96
 The applicant claims that the Court should :                        Action brought on 26 March 1996 by Oleifici Italiani SpA
                                                                        against the Commission of the European Communities
— annul the decision of the Commission of 20 December
                                                                                             ( Case T-44/96 )
     1995 ( Case REM 5/95 ),
                                                                                               ( 96/C 180/79 )
— order the defendant to pay the costs .
                                                                                      (Language of the case: Italian)
 Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant, an undertaking engaged for many years in the          An action against the Commission of the European
 importation of high quality beef ('Hilton ' beef) from              Communities was brought before the Court of First
 Argentina , contests the Commission's decision of                   Instance of the European Communities on 26 March 1996
 20 December 1 995 ( Case REM 5/95 ), notified by the                by Oleifici Italiani SpA, whose registered office is at Ostuni
 Hauptzollamt ( Principal Customs Office ), Diisseldorf, by          ( BR ) ( Italy ), represented by Antonio Tizzano and
which the Commission refused to refund import levies on              Gianmichele Roberti, both of the Naples Bar, with an
 Hilton    beef   from    Argentina     amounting     to   DM        address for service at 36 Place du Grand Sablon,
 11 422 736,45 .                                                     Brussels .
The applicant maintains in particular that the Commission's
decision is founded on an incorrect legal basis . The correct        The applicant claims that the Court should :
legal basis on which the decision should have been founded
was not Article 13 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1430/79 but
Article 239 of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2913/92 ( the Customs           — annul partially the Commission's decision contained in
 Code ).                                                                  the letter from Mr M. Jacquiot, the Director of
                                                                          Directorate General Agriculture ( DG VI ) — Directorate
The decision breaches essential procedural requirements,                  G, European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee
since in the present case the applicant was not granted any               Fund ( EAGGF ) — of 16 January 1996 ( Case No
direct right to be heard or to vindicate its position in the              VI/003107 ), in so far as it refuses to compensate Oleifici
remission procedure ( analogous to inter partes proceedings )             Italiani for part of the damage caused by the
 before the Commission .                                                  Commission by the delay in the take-over of the lots of
                                                                          olive oil awarded on the basis of Regulation ( EC ) No
In its interpretation and application of the term                         2494/94 of 14 October 1994 ( ! ),
'circumstances ' within the meaning of Article 239 of the
Customs Code, the Commission committed a number of                   — order the harm suffered by the applicant as a consequence
serious and manifest errors of assessment, in so far as it                of the alleged unlawful conduct to be made good by the
appraised the arguments advanced in the application at all                Commission ,
and provided a statement of the grounds for its decision
refusing the same . In particular, the Commission failed to
appreciate, or incorrectly appreciated, the serious                 — order the Commission to pay the costs .
dereliction of duty on the part of the competent Argentinian
authorities and/or the Argentinian Government in their
capacity as guarantor of the system for issuing and                  Pleas in law and main arguments:
monitoring certificates of authenticity in Argentina , as well
as its own serious dereliction of duty with regard to the            In the context of the tendering procedure for the supply of
implementation and supervision of the Community tariff               olive oil to the people of Georgia and Armenia, opened by
quotas within the Community . As a result of those                   Regulation ( EC ) No 2494/94 , the Commission awarded to
derelictions of duty, it had been possible to falsify                the applicant the supply of three of the consignments of olive
certificates of authenticity even before 1991 . The applicant        oil which were the object of the call for tenders . Following
should not, as an importer, be made to bear a risk which had        the award, the applicant fulfilled all the obligations relating
been created only as a result of the derelictions of duty, and      to the supply in question . However, the subsequent
which it was powerless to prevent.                                  take-over of the goods was delayed as a result of the
                                                                     negligent organization by the Commission of the
The decision breaches the principle of proportionality, since       embarkation and transport operations . By letter of 22 May
the Commission was in a position, having been empowered              1995 the applicant requested compensation for damage
so to do by the Council, to reduce, with regard to Argentina ,      suffered ( vehicles not able to be used, storage and insurance
the quota in respect of quantities of Hilton beef imported on       costs, cost of the bank guarantee and damage arising from
the basis of falsified certificates of authenticity, but only       the failure to use the appropriate lines of credit), for a total
partially availed itself of that option. The principle of           amounting to Lit 1 062 880 216 . On 29 September 1995 ,
proportionality precludes the Commission from                       following that request for compensation, the applicant
unjustifiably and unnecessarily imposing excessive import           received from the Commission credit of Lit 444 908 307. By
levies on the applicant in its capacity as a bona fide              a letter of 16 January 1 996 , the Commission sent the
importer .                                                          applicant a list of the expenditure which it agreed to
                                                                    compensate. The applicant points out that its dispute with
                                                                    the Commission essentially concerns the question of