CELEX: C2004/007/78
Language: en
Date: 2004-01-10 00:00:00
Title: Case T-372/03: Action brought on 10 November 2003 by Yves Mahieu against the Commission of the European Communities

C 7/42                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          10.1.2004
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:                          —     order the Commission to pay all costs and expenses in
                                                                                these proceedings.
—    a combination of an error in law and a manifest error of
     assessment of the facts, inasmuch as the contested
     decision does not consider the work carried out by him
     for the Delegation of the Autonomous Community of                    Pleas in law and main arguments
     Murcia in Brussels ‘work done for [a] State’, in the sense
     recognised in the Staff Regulations as an exception to the
     reference period. In the alternative, he claims that the
                                                                          The Contested Decision in this case rejected the applicants
     Council wrongly concluded in the contested decision that
                                                                          request to declassify rosin as a dangerous substance listed in
     the applicant’s centre of interest and habitual residence
                                                                          Annex I of Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on
     were in Brussels and not in Murcia;
                                                                          the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative
—    infringement of the principle of equal treatment, in                 provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling
     that the appointing authority discriminated between                  of dangerous substances (1).
     essentially identical personal situations.
                                                                          In support of their application the applicants submit that the
                                                                          Contested Decision is unlawful on the grounds that the
                                                                          classification of rosin was decided on the basis of test results
                                                                          relating to a different substance, namely oxidised rosin. They
                                                                          further submit that the classification in question is not
Action brought on 29 October 2003 by Arizona Chemical                     supported by the conclusion of the scientific assessment
B.V., Eastman Belguim B.V.B.A., Resinall Europe B.V.B.A.                  conducted under Directive 67/548 and was decided on the
and Cray Valley Iberica S.A. against the Commission of                    wrong premise that rosin always produces oxidised rosin and
                 the European Communities                                 that the latter causes skin sensitisation under normal handling
                                                                          and use. The applicants also contend that the Contested
                                                                          Decision is unlawful because it is based on the ‘precautionary
                         (Case T-369/03)
                                                                          principle’, which does not apply to hazard-based decisions,
                                                                          that the Contested Decision violates the EC Treaty as it fails to
                          (2004/C 7/77)                                   consider new, state-of-the-art scientific evidence on oxidised
                                                                          rosin and that, finally, the Contested Decision also violates
                  (Language of the case: English)                         fundamental principles of Community law, more especially
                                                                          the principles of legal certainty, legitimate expectations and
                                                                          proportionality.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          (1) OJ P 196 , 16.08.1967, p. 1-98, English special edition: Series I
European Communities on 29 October 2003 by Arizona                            Chapter 1967, p. 234.
Chemical B.V., Almere, the Netherlands, Eastman Belguim
B.V.B.A., Kallo, Belguim, Resinall Europe B.V.B.A., Brugge,
Belguim and Cray Valley Iberica S.A., Madrid, Spain , represent-
ed by Claudio Mereu and Koen Van Maldegem, lawyers.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—    annul Commission          Decision    D(2003)430245        of
                                                                          Action brought on 10 November 2003 by Yves Mahieu
     20 August 2003;
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
—    declare that the rosin entry in Annex I of Council Directive
     67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of                                           (Case T-372/03)
     laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating
     to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous
     substances, is unlawful;                                                                       (2004/C 7/78)
—    in the alternative, declare that the rosin Annex I entry is
     inapplicable to the Applicants under Article 241 EC                                     (Language of the case: French)
     Treaty;
—    compensate Applicants for damages suffered as a result of
     the adoption of the contested Decision, in the provisional           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     amount of EUR 1; or, in the alternative declare the                  ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
     Commission liable for imminent damage foreseeable with               European Communities on 10 November 2003 by Yves
     sufficient certainty, even if the damage cannot be precisely         Mahieu, residing in Brussels, represented by Lucas Vogel,
     assessed;                                                            lawyer.
 ---pagebreak--- 10.1.2004             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 7/43
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                      Removal from the register of Case T-131/02 (1)
—     annul the implied decision which the appointing auth-                                        (2004/C 7/80)
      ority might be deemed to have taken, rejecting the
      complaint made by the applicant on 29 October 2002,
      by which it requested the annulment of a decision dated                               (Language of the Case: English)
      6 August 2002, refusing to grant a request for assistance
      and compensation made on 24 January 2002 on the basis
      of Article 24 and Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations;           By order of 2 October 2003 the President of the Fifth Chamber
                                                                          of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
—     so far as necessary also annul that decision of 6 August            ordered the removal from the register of Case T-131/02:
      2002, against which the complaint of 29 October 2002                Travelex Global and Financial Services Limited and Interpay-
      was made;                                                           ment Services Limited v Commission of the European Com-
                                                                          munities.
—     order the defendant to pay compensation of EUR 50 000,
      without prejudice to subsequent increase, reduction or
      alteration;                                                         (1) OJ C 169 of 13.07.2002.
—     order the defendant to pay the costs and the expenses
      necessarily incurred for the purposes of the proceedings,
      inter alia, accommodation, travel and subsistence
      expenses, and lawyers fees.
                                                                                 Removal from the register of Case T-159/02 (1)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                                   (2004/C 7/81)
The applicant made a request for assistance to the Commission
seeking the opening of an investigation and payment of                                      (Language of the Case: English)
compensation following psychological harassment to which
he was allegedly subjected in Eurostat.
                                                                          By order of 15 September 2003 the President of the Fifth
In support of his application, the applicant alleges a manifest           Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
error of assessment in the decision rejecting his request, a              Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
breach of the principle of legitimate expectations and of the             T-159/02: Masdar (U.K.) Ltd v Commission of the European
duty to have regard for the welfare of officials and, finally, a          Communities.
breach of the principle of equal treatment and the right to
reasonable career expectations.                                           (1) OJ C 202 of 24.08.2002.
        Removal from the register of Case T-68/02 (1)
                                                                                 Removal from the register of Case T-162/03 (1)
                         (2004/C 7/79)
                                                                                                   (2004/C 7/82)
                  (Language of the Case: English)
                                                                                             (Language of the Case: French)
By order of 15 September 2003 the President of the Fifth
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case                 By order of 30 September 2003 the President of the Fourth
T-68/02: Masdar (U.K.) Ltd v Commission of the European                   Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities.                                                              Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                          T-162/03: Pascal Millot v Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities.
(1) OJ C 131 of 1.06.2002.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 171 of 19.07.2003.