CELEX: C2000/006/58
Language: en
Date: 2000-01-08 00:00:00
Title: Case T-243/99: Action brought on 19 October 1999 by Marie-Laurence Buisson against the Commission of the European Communities

8.1.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 6/33
Action brought on 19 October 1999 by Marie-Laurence                     — Breach by the Commission of its obligation concerning the
Buisson against the Commission of the European Com-                          time-limit and the manner of correction of the alleged
                            munities                                         error in its letter of 30 April 1999.
                                                                        — Breach of the principle of good administration arising
                         (Case T-243/99)                                     from the Commission’s failure to take every care to ensure
                                                                             that the letter which it alleged was sent to the applicant on
                                                                             5 May 1999 actually reached its intended destination.
                          (2000/C 6/58)
                  (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 19 October 1999 by Marie-                       Action brought on 18 October 1999 by Autobedrijf
Laurence Buisson, represented by Ian S. Forrester QC at the             Diepenmaat V.O.F. against the Commission of the Euro-
Scots Bar, Elisabethann Wright, Barrister of the Inn of Court                                    pean Communities
of Northern Ireland, Fiona M. Murray, Barrister of the Middle
Temple, and Fredrik Lindblom, Biträdande Jurist, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Maître                                        (Case T-248/99)
Aloyse May, 31 Grand rue, BP 144.
                                                                                                    (2000/C 6/59)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                             (Language of the Case: Dutch)
— annul the decision of the Commission of July 13, 1999
    rejecting the applicant’s appeal against her exclusion from
    the written tests in Open Competition COM/A/10/98;                  An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 18 October 1999 by Autobedrijf
— award pecuniary damages in the sum of BEF 100 000;                    Diepenmaat V.O.F., of Borne (Netherlands), represented by
                                                                        H.W. Kesler, of the Enschede Bar, with an address for service
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                in Luxembourg at the Chambers of K. Manhaeve, 56-58 Rue
                                                                        Charles Martel.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        (a) annul the Commission’s decision (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)
The purpose of the action is to challenge the legality of a                  of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the
decision by the Commission rejecting an appeal by the                        Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
applicant against her exclusion from the second stage of the                 Germany;
selection procedure in Open Competition COM/A/10/98. In
support of her case, the applicant puts forward the following           (b) order the Commission to pay the costs.
pleas in law:
— Breach of the applicant’s legitimate expectation that she             Pleas in law and main arguments
    would be invited to participate in the written tests. That
    expectation is clearly established by the Commission’s
                                                                        This case is linked to Case T-210/99. The applicant claims,
    letter of 30 April 1999. According to the applicant, given
                                                                        inter alia, that the Commission has misinterpreted the terms
    that Point IV.5 of the Notice of Competition provided that
    a list of those candidates who had fulfilled the basic              ‘undertaking’ and ‘aid’ in assuming that aid granted by the
                                                                        authorities and aid granted by a private individual are so similar
    conditions for admission and obtained a mark which was
    one of the 200 highest in the pre-selection tests would             in nature that the matter necessarily involves cumulation in
    be drawn up and that Point VIII.5 provided that those               accordance with the de minimis rule.
    candidates would be admitted to the written tests. the letter
    could only be interpreted as meaning that she was among
    the 200 candidates to be admitted to the written tests and          (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
    that the Commission was checking to ensure that her
    application fulfilled the basic conditions for admission laid
    down in Point III of the Notice of Competition.