CELEX: C2002/156/67
Language: en
Date: 2002-06-29 00:00:00
Title: Case T-134/02: Action brought on 25 April 2002 by Miguel Tejada Fernández against the Commission of the European Communities

C 156/36               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   29.6.2002
Action brought on 18 April 2002 by Pravir Kumar                           In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:
Chawdhry against Commission of the European Com-
                             munities
                                                                          —    infringement of Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations;
                         (Case T-133/02)                                  —    infringement of Article 32 of the Staff Regulations;
                         (2002/C 156/66)                                  —    breach of the principle of non-discrimination;
                                                                          —    breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of
                    (Language of the case: French)                             officials;
                                                                          —    breach of the rules on the free movement of workers;
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                —    breach of the obligation to state reasons.
European Communities on 18 April 2002 by Pravir Kumar
Chawdhry, residing in Sangiano (Italy), represented by Georges
Vandersanden and Laure Levi, avocats.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the authority empowered to                    Action brought on 25 April 2002 by Miguel Tejada
      conclude contracts of employment (AECCE) of 2 May                   Fernández against the Commission of the European Com-
      2001 classifying the applicant in Grade A 6, step 3, and,                                       munities
      in so far as necessary, annul the decision of 14 December
      2001, served on 8 January 2002, rejecting the applicant’s                                   (Case T-134/02)
      complaint;
                                                                                                  (2002/C 156/67)
—     order the defendant to pay the balance of the salary
      consisting in the difference between the remuneration
      corresponding to classification in Grade A 6, step 3,                                 (Language of the case: French)
      and the remuneration corresponding to a higher grade,
      together with default interest at the rate of 5,75 % per
      annum, with effect from 1 April 2001;
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—     order the defendant to pay damages provisionally asses-             European Communities on 25 April 2002 by Miguel Tejada
      sed, ex æquo et bono, at EUR 1;                                     Fernández, residing in Woluwé-St-Etienne, Belgium, represent-
                                                                          ed by Lucas Vogel, lawyer, with an address for service in
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                               Luxembourg.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           —    annul the decision of the appointing authority of 10 Janu-
                                                                               ary 2002, notified to the applicant on 15 January 2002,
                                                                               rejecting the applicant’s claim of 3 October 2001 for
The applicant, a temporary agent employed by the Com-                          annulment of the decision refusing him promotion to
mission, contests the decision of the AECCE classifying him in                 grade B2 for the 2001 promotions year, and annulment
Grade A 6, step 3.                                                             of the proposals for promotion to that grade;
                                                                          —    in so far as is necessary, annul the decision refusing the
                                                                               applicant promotion to grade B2 for the 2001 pro-
The applicant claims that the AECCE ought to have specifically
                                                                               motions year, and the proposals for promotion to that
assessed the possible application of Article 31(2) of the Staff
                                                                               grade;
Regulations to the applicant and that such an assessment
should have led to the actual application of that provision to
the applicant, that is to say to his classification in Grade A 5.         —    order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 29.6.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 156/37
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of his action, the applicant argues infringement of
                                                                         The Commission decision against which the present action is
Article 45(1) of the Staff Regulations, infringement of the
                                                                         brought is the same as that contested in Case T-109/92 Bolloré
principle of non-discrimination and a manifest error of
                                                                         v Commission (1). In that decision, the Commission found that
assessment. According to the applicant, any objective consider-
                                                                         the applicant had participated in the national meetings of
ation of the respective merits of the officials eligible for
                                                                         the secret European cartel in the context of the European
promotion would not have led to his being disregarded.
                                                                         Association of Manufacturers of Carbonless Paper (AEMPC),
                                                                         the adoption and concerted application of price increases, the
                                                                         sharing of sales and market quotas in the copying paper sector
                                                                         and the establishment of control mechanisms.
                                                                         In support of its claims, the applicant pleads infringement of
Action brought on 18 April 2002 by Papelera Guipuz-                      the principles of presumption of innocence and of the burden
coana de Zicuñaga, S.A. against Commission of the                       of proof. In that regard, it denies having participated in the
                     European Communities                                meetings held for the purpose of organising the European
                                                                         cartel. The applicant emphasises that the defendant institution
                                                                         ignored not only the fact that the applicant does not belong to
                         (Case T-136/02)                                 the AEMPC but also the fact that that association did not
                                                                         possess information relating to the applicant’s prices and sales
                                                                         volumes.
                         (2002/C 156/68)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                       The applicant claims that the fine imposed on it should be
                                                                         reduced by at least 60 %. Apart from what has already been
                                                                         stated in the preceding paragraph, the applicant emphasises
                                                                         that the infringements imputed to it are alleged to have lasted
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                for less than one year.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 April 2002 by Papelera Guipuz-
coana de Zicuñaga, S.A., whose registered office is at Hernani
(Guipúzcoa, Spain), represented by Iñigo Quintana Aguirre.
                                                                         (1) Not yet published in OJ.
The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
—     annul Article 1 of the Commission decision of 20 Decem-
      ber 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81
      of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement
      (Case COMPE/E/1/36.212 — Carbonless paper), in so far
      as it finds that Zicuñaga participated in the infringement
      and in so far as it relates to the duration of the                 Action brought on 8 May 2002 by Armin Petrich against
      infringement, and Article 3 in relation to the fine imposed               the Commission of the European Communities
      in Article 4;
—     in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the                                          (Case T-145/02)
      applicant in the contested decision as follows:
      (a)   annul the application of the excess of 10 % applied                                   (2002/C 156/69)
            by the Commission on the ground that a duration
            in excess of one year was not imputed to the
            applicant;                                                                      (Language of the case: French)
      (b) reduce substantially (by a minimum of 60 %) the
            basic penalty imposed to take account of the
            mitigating circumstances indicated;                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      (c)   award costs to the applicant, including expenditure          European Communities by Armin Petrich, of Travemünde,
            and interest for the guarantees provided, deriving           Germany, represented by Patrick Goergen, lawyer, with an
            from the handling of the entire procedure.                   address for service in Luxembourg,