CELEX: C2003/146/76
Language: en
Date: 2003-06-21 00:00:00
Title: Case T-132/03: Action brought on 15 April 2003 by Paola Casini against the Commission of the European Communities

C 146/42               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          21.6.2003
Action brought on 11 April 2003 by Akzo Nobel Chemi-                      In support of their application, the applicants submit that the
cals Ltd. and Akcros Chemicals Ltd. against the Com-                      Commission has committed an infringement of the Treaty, an
            mission of the European Communities                           infringement of general principles of Community Law and has
                                                                          violated Regulation 17/62 as interpreted by the European
                                                                          Courts.
                         (Case T-125/03)
                        (2003/C 146/75)                                   More specifically, the applicants claim that the Commission
                                                                          has violated the principle of legal professional privilege by
                                                                          violating the procedures relating to the application of the
                  (Language of the case: English)                         principle as set out by the European Courts. Furthermore, the
                                                                          applicant submits that the Commission violated the principle
                                                                          of legal professional privilege by its unjustified and immediate
                                                                          denial of its application during the on the spot investigation
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 and the seizure of some of the documents. Finally, the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                applicants submit that the Commission violated the applicants’
European Communities on 11 April 2003 by Akzo Nobel                       fundamental rights, such as the right to privacy.
Chemicals Ltd., Hersham, United Kingdom, and Akcros
Chemicals Ltd., Hersham, United Kingdom, represented by
Mr C. Swaak, lawyer.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     to review under Article 230 the legality of the Decision
      in as far as it has been interpreted by the Commission              Action brought on 15 April 2003 by Paola Casini against
      as legitimating and/or constituting the basis of the                       the Commission of the European Communities
      Commission’s action (which is not severable from the
      Decision), of seizing and/or reviewing and/or reading
      documents covered by legal professional privilege;                                           (Case T-132/03)
—     to annul under Article 231 the Decision in as far as it has                                  (2003/C 146/76)
      been interpreted by the Commission as legitimating and/
      or constituting the basis of the Commission’s action
      (which is not severable from the Decision), of seizing                                  (Language of the case: French)
      and/or reviewing and/or reading documents covered by
      legal professional privilege;
—     to require that the Commission, to comply with the
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      judgement annulling the Decision, return documents
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      covered by legal professional privilege and not to use
                                                                          European Communities on 15 April 2003 by Paola Casini,
      their contents in any way;
                                                                          residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden,
                                                                          avocat.
—     to order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs in
      the present proceedings.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     order the list of officials promoted to Grade A 6 which
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                was published on 18 August 2002 to be annulled in so
                                                                                far as the applicant’s name is not included on that list;
Pursuant to Commission Decision C(2003)559/4 of 10 Febru-
ary 2003, the Commission conducted an on the spot investi-                —     order compensation to be paid to the applicant in respect
gation on the premises of the applicants in Eccles, Manchester,                 of the material and non-material damage which she has
United Kingdom. In the course of the investigation, the                         suffered, provisionally estimated at a total of EUR 20 000,
Commission reviewed, copied and seized several documents.                       in respect of which the material damage relates to
                                                                                the financial readjustment of the applicant’s salary to
                                                                                correspond to Grade A 6 from the date of publication of
Some of these documents became the object of a disagreement                     the list of those promoted (increased by default interest
between the applicants and the Commission. According to the                     fixed at 7 % per annum);
applicants, the seizure of those documents violated the general
principle of legal professional privilege.                                —     order the defendant to pay all of the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 21.6.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 146/43
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Action brought on 28 April 2003 by Nuova Agricast S.r.l.
                                                                            against the Commission of the European Communities
In support of her action, the applicant pleads failure to state
reasons, breach of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and                                          (Case T-139/03)
infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, manifest
errors of assessment, breach of the duty of care and infringe-
ment of the principle of sound administration, infringement                                         (2003/C 146/78)
of the principle of equality of opportunity and, finally, misuse
of powers.
                                                                                              (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Action brought on 22 April 2003 by Robert Charles                         European Communities on 28 April 2003 by Nuova Agricast
  Schochaert against the Council of the European Union                    S.r.l., represented by Michele Arcangelo Calabrese, avvocato.
                         (Case T-136/03)
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
                        (2003/C 146/77)
                                                                          —      Annul the contested measures;
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          —      Order the European Commission to pay the costs.
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 22 April 2003 by Robert Charles Schochaert,                Pleas in law and main arguments
residing in Brussels, represented by Jean A. Martin, avocat.
                                                                          By its action, the applicant company is challenging:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—      order the Council to pay to the applicant EUR 225 702,94           1.     the Commission’s letter *D/50721, COMP/G1 D(03)142/
       by way of compensation, and order it to pay the costs.                    PI/cpb dated 3 February 2003 (concerning consultations
                                                                                 with the authorities of the Member State which had
                                                                                 drawn up the documents);
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           2.     Commission document SG.B.2/MM D(2003) sent by fax
                                                                                 on 14 March 2003;
The applicant, a former Council official, seeks by way of the
present action to recover compensation in respect of the                  3.     the Commission’s letter *D/51652, COMP/G1/PI/
damage which he claims to have suffered through the defend-                      cpb D(03) dated 12 March 2003.
ant’s refusal to promote him to Grade B 1 during the course of
promotions from 1978 to 2000.
                                                                          In support of its claims, the applicant submits as follows:
The applicant contends that the defendant has refused, since
1978, to promote him on the ground that his duties did not                —      by consulting the authorities of the Member State which
involve the exercise of responsibilities justifying promotion                    had drawn up the documents requested, and in so doing
vis-à-vis other candidates for such promotion, this being a                      even though it was already clear to it that the documents
ground which, in the applicant’s view, is unlawful and amounts                   in issue were excluded from the right of access as being
to a misuse of power for which the Council must incur                            ‘covered’ by the exception ‘inspections and investigations’,
liability.                                                                       the Commission breached the procedural guarantees
                                                                                 conferred on individuals by Article 4(4) of Regulation
                                                                                 (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of
The applicant further alleges that he has been the victim of                     the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to
exclusion and non-physical harassment by a number of his                         European Parliament, Council and Commission docu-
hierarchical superiors.                                                          ments (OJ 2001 L 145 of 31 May 2001, p. 43) and the
                                                                                 similarly-worded Article 5(2) of the relevant updating
                                                                                 provisions. The Commission thus infringed its own