CELEX: C2002/056/23
Language: en
Date: 2002-03-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-296/01: Action brought on 6 December 2001 by Antonio Enrico Tatti against Commission of the European Communities

C 56/12               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        2.3.2002
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action brought on 6 December 2001 by Antonio Enrico                     Action brought on 7 December 2001 by Julia Abad Pérez
 Tatti against Commission of the European Communities                   and Others against the Council of the European Union
                                                                            and the Commission of the European Communities
                        (Case T-296/01)
                                                                                                (Case T-304/01)
                         (2002/C 56/23)                                                          (2002/C 56/24)
                  (Language of the case: French)                                           (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                        An action against the Council of the European Union and the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               Commission of the European Communities 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 6 December 2001 by Antonio                      on 7 December 2001 by Julia Abad Pérez and Others, all of
Enrico Tatti, residing in Overijse (Belgium), represented by            them established in Spain, represented by Miquel Roca Junyent,
Lucas Vogel, lawyer.                                                    Joan Roca Sagarra and Marta Pons de Vall Alomar, lawyers.
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                        —     declare that the Council and the Commission have acted
—     annul the decision of the appointing authority of                       unlawfully and are thus liable under Article 288 EC for
      16 August 2001 rejecting the complaint lodged by the                    having spread the BSE crisis within the territory of the
      applicant on 11 February 2001, challenging the decision                 European Union and, consequently, for the damage
      of the appeal assessor of 21 November 2000 refusing to                  alleged in the present application;
      review the applicant’s staff report;
                                                                        —     order the Council and the Commission jointly and
                                                                              severally to pay compensation for the damage caused to
—     order the defendant to pay damages amounting to                         the applicants as a result of that crisis, quantified in the
      EUR 2 500;                                                              present application in the sum of 19 438 372,69 euros,
                                                                              and for the non-material damage suffered by them
                                                                              (amounting to a further 15 % over and above the
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                   aforementioned sum, that is to say, 2 915 755,80 euros);
                                                                              and
                                                                        —     order the Council and the Commission to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges infringement of
Articles 5, 6 and 7 of the general provisions implementing
Article 43 of the Staff Regulations inasmuch as the reporting           The applicants are Spanish stockbreeders. They are claiming
procedure is irregular and in particular that the time-limit to         compensation for the damage and prejudice suffered as a result
which the administration should have adhered in drawing up              of the crisis concerning the so-called ‘mad cow disease’
the staff report was not observed. The applicant further claims         since the outbreak of the first case of bovine spongiform
infringement of Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, manifest           encephalopathy (BSE) in Spain on 22 November 2000, which
error of assessment and breach of the principle of non-                 plunged the Spanish stockbreeding sector into a serious crisis
discrimination. According to the applicant, his staff report was        from which it has still not yet managed fully to recover.
drawn up taking account of arbitrary rules for reporting on
staff which fettered subsequent reporting officers in their
discretion.                                                             According to the applicants, each stockbreeder is currently
                                                                        having to bear:
                                                                        —     the costs of removal and destruction of specified risk
                                                                              material (SRM);