CELEX: C2000/122/55
Language: en
Date: 2000-04-29 00:00:00
Title: Case T-22/00: Action brought on 27 January 2000 by Enrico Sabbioni against Commission of the European Communities

C 122/36               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     29.4.2000
— order the Council and the ECB to pay the costs.                         — annul the decision of the appointing authority of 10 Febru-
                                                                              ary 1999 refusing to recognise the occupational cause of
                                                                              his wife’s illness;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          — order the defendant to pay the fees and expenses incurred
                                                                              by the applicant in accordance with Article 23(2) of the
I. Against the Council’s decision                                             Rules on the insurance of officials of the European
                                                                              Communities against the risk of accident and of occu-
                                                                              pational disease;
    1. Infringement of the fundamental principle of protec-
         tion of legitimate expectations, infringement of the
                                                                          — order the defendant to pay the costs.
         principle of sound administration, deceit and total bad
         faith on the part of the Council
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
    2. Infringement of the fundamental principle of Com-
         munity law concerning the citizen’s right of access to
         documents and of Article 1 of Council Decision                   According to the applicant, his wife suffered a high degree of
         93/731                                                           exposure to contaminating agents during her working life, in
                                                                          particular exposure to asbestos while she was working in the
    3. Infringement of Article 253 of the EC Treaty: absence              ‘Berlaymont’ Building from 1974 to 1979. In his view, it
         of legal reasoning.                                              follows that the lung cancer of which his wife died had an
                                                                          occupational cause.
II. Against the ECB’s decision                                            In support of his claims, he alleges:
    1. Infringement of essential procedural requirements (lack            — that the opinion of the medical committee was unlawful.
         of reasoning) and misuse of powers
                                                                              The meeting of the medical committee took place under
    2. Infringement of the fundamental principle of trans-                    improper circumstances. The committee’s opinion did not
         parency and the right of access to documents.                        express a view as to certain important matters, was
                                                                              based on inaccuracies and showed no comprehensible
                                                                              connection between the medical findings and the con-
                                                                              clusions it contains;
                                                                          — unequal treatment and a manifest error of assessment.
                                                                              The Commission recognised the occupational cause of
Action brought on 24 January 2000 by Ivo Camacho-Fer-                         the disease of another official who developed pathology
nandes against Commission of the European Communi-                            absolutely similar to that of the applicant’s wife, following
                                ties                                          exposure to asbestos.
                          (Case T-20/00)
                         (2000/C 122/54)
                    (Language of the case: French)                        Action brought on 27 January 2000 by Enrico Sabbioni
                                                                              against Commission of the European Communities
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                          (Case T-22/00)
European Communities on 24 January 2000 by Ivo Cama-
cho-Fernandes, residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented by                                      (2000/C 122/55)
Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Becker & Cahen, 3
Rue des Foyers.                                                                               (Language of the case: Italian)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
— annul the Commission’s decision of 8 October 1999                       European Communities on 27 January 2000 by Enrico Sab-
    rejecting the applicant’s complaint lodged pursuant to                bioni, represented by Bruno Nascimbene and Marina S. Mori,
    Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations against the appointing         of the Milan Bar, and Massimo Condinanzi, of the Biella Bar,
    authority’s decision refusing to acknowledge the occu-                with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
    pational cause of the lung cancer from which his wife died;           Franco Colussi, 36 Rue de Wiltz.
 ---pagebreak--- 29.4.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 122/37
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul Commission Decision No 2749 of 12 October                        — annul the decision of the Commission of 13 December
    1999, and                                                                 1999;
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                 — order the Commission to pay the applicant EUR 109 921
                                                                              in performance of the supply contract;
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          — order the Commission to pay default interest;
                                                                         — order the Commission to pay the costs in their entirety.
The applicant in this case challenges the decision refusing to
allow him to file a statement with the Procura della Repubblica
(Public Prosecutor’s Office) at the Pretura Circondariale di
Varese (Varese District Court) concerning the disappearance of           Pleas in law and main arguments
24 autopsy specimens taken for the purposes of an expert’s
report, which it is impossible to repeat, in criminal proceedings
                                                                         The applicant, a company which successfully bid in response
pending before the Pretura di Foggia (Foggia District Court),
                                                                         to a call for tenders concerning a consignment of 15 000
and held in the radiochemical laboratory at the JRC in Ispra.
                                                                         tonnes of maize pursuant to Regulation No 990/98 of 11 May
                                                                         1998, contests a Commission decision refusing its request for
The contested decision justifies the refusal to allow the                payment of an additional sum of EUR 109 921,41 for the
applicant to file that statement with the Italian judicial               supply, which was furnished in accordance with the Regu-
authorities on the grounds that such refusal did not entail              lation. According to the Commission, deductions relating to
criminal consequences.                                                   undelivered quantities were calculated in accordance with the
                                                                         rules in force.
In support of his application, the applicant alleges:
                                                                         The applicant alleges that the Commission is thereby in breach
— Breach of Article 19 of the Staff Regulations;                         of its contractual obligations. It contests the figure taken by
                                                                         the Commission to be the final quantity on which to base
— Misuse of powers consisting, in particular, of a failure to            payment, and also the fact that it, the applicant, was deemed
    state reasons, distortion of matters of fact and of law, the         liable in respect of theft from its Niamey warehouses. The
    obvious inconsistency of the contested decision, and                 applicant also maintains that those thefts are accurately
    breach of the principles of sound administration, trans-             quantifiable; that it is easy to assign a value to the quantities
    parency, equal treatment, breach of the duty of the                  on which payment is outstanding; and that the applicant has
    Community and judicial authorities to cooperate in good              not been in a position to challenge the certificate of conformity
    faith and the principle of proportionality.                          because the wording is so ambiguous.
Action brought on 11 February 2000 by Société Lecureur                   Action brought on 15 February 2000 by Luis Borrego
SA against the Commission of the European Communities                             Alias against the Committee of the Regions
                         (Case T-26/00)                                                            (Case T-28/00)
                        (2000/C 122/56)                                                           (2000/C 122/57)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                          (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                An action against the Committee of the Regions was brought
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
European Communities on 11 February 2000 by Société                      on 15 February 2000 by Luis Borrego Alias, residing in
Lecureur SA, whose seat is in Paris, represented by Lise                 Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Greta-Françoise
Funck-Brentano, Avocat, Paris, and Jean Villette, Avocat,                Parmentier and Véronique Peere, Avocats, Brussels, with an
Versailles, France, with an address for service in Luxembourg            address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of the Société
at the Chambers of Jacques Neuen, 1 Place du Théâtre.                    de Gestion Fiduciaire Sarl, 2-4 Rue Beck.