CELEX: C1995/268/54
Language: en
Date: 1995-10-14 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 17 July 1995 by Hilaire Della Pietra against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-148/95)

14 . 10 . 95          EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 268/25
in Luxembourg, represented by Giancarlo Lattanzi, of the                nomination,      infringement     of     essential   procedural
Massa-Carrara Bar, with an address for service in                       requirements and misuse of powers .
Luxembourg at 33 rue Godchaux.
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— annul the notice entitled ' Call for nominations for the              Action brought on 17 July 1995 by Hilaire Delia Pietra
     office of Ombudsman', published on 23 May 1995 ( OJ                  against the Commission of the European Communities
     No C 127, p . 4 ), and all acts connected with it or                                      ( Case T-148/95 )
     adopted as a consequence , particularly:                                                    ( 95/C 268/54 )
     — the Secretary General's Decision No 019473 of
                                                                                       (Language of tbe case: Frencb)
          15 June 1995 ,
     — the acts relating to the admissibility of the                    An action against the Commission of the European
          nominations of the persons concerned ;                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                        Instance on 17 July 1995 by Hilaire Delia Pietra , resident in
                                                                        Brussels , represented by Georges Vandersanden, of the
     — the administrative acts following the public hearing             Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
          on 28 and 29 June 1995 ,                                      the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sàrl, 1 Rue Glesener .
— order the European Parliament to pay the costs of the                 The applicant claims that the Court should :
     proceedings .
                                                                       — annul the decision by Mr A. J. Gaston contained in a
                                                                            note of 25 October 1994 by which, in so far as the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                         applicant refused to undergo surgery, he reduced to 0 %
                                                                            the 4 % rate of invalidity that the applicant had been
                                                                            recognized as suffering by the Medical Committee , in its
The applicant states that he forwarded his nomination for                   report of 15 November 1991 ,
the office of Ombudsman following the issue of the notice
entitled ' Call for nominations for the office of Ombudsman '          — order the Commission to pay nominal damages of one
( OJ No C 127, 23 . 5 . 1995 , p . 4 ). He was not notified of any          ECU in compensation for the non-material damage
decision concerning his nomination , but deduced that he                    suffered,
had not been successful from the fact that, according to the
information published in the bulletin 'Info Memo 109 ' of              — order the Commission to pay the fees of the doctors to
21 June 1995 , he was not one of the six nominees due to be                 whom the applicant had to have recourse,
heard by the Parliament's Committee on Petitions .
                                                                       — order the Commission to pay all the costs .
The applicant contests the provisions adopted for the
implementation of Article 138e of the Treaty on European               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Union ( which provides for the appointment of the
Ombudsman ), particularly Rule 159 of the Rules of                     The applicant considers that the defendant committed a
Procedure of the European Parliament, the notice calling for            manifest error in refusing to recognize his state of partial
nominations and , above all, the procedure used by the                 permanent invalidity as found by the Medical Committee,
Parliament for consideration of the nominations entered .               on the pretext that he refused to undergo surgery . He points
According to the applicant, the notice calling for                      out that the Medical Committee recognized that his state
nominations lays down requirements which are obscure,                  corresponded to a rate of partial permanent invalidity of
ambiguous , impossible to fulfil within the prescribed period          4 % ; although the report adds that that rate of invalidity
and scarcely mutually compatible and that it is contrary to            could be reduced to 0 % if he had an operation, nevertheless
the fundamental principles of the Treaty on the basis of                an official cannot be compelled to undergo surgery nor be
which the post of Ombudsman was created . As regards the               penalized by the administration for not doing so, even if the
procedure for considering the nominations, the applicant                operation presents only a slight risk, since the risk can never
submits that his nomination was neither registered nor                  be totally excluded . The applicant maintains that the
notified to the Members who were to elect the Ombudsman;                Commission's attitude, with its particular insistence that he
furthermore , he was not informed of any decision                       should undergo surgery, goes beyond the sphere within
concerning the outcome of his nomination .                              which it is entitled to intervene and manifestly exceeds its
                                                                       powers .
In support of his application, the applicant alleges                   The applicant maintains, furthermore , that the many faults
infringement of the Treaty on European Union, lack of                   committed by the institution in flagrant fashion, as shown in
competence of the authorities in deciding not to consider his           the file concerning the consequences of his accident on
 ---pagebreak--- No C 268/26          EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   14 . 10 . 95
10 August 1982, should be penalized by payment of                     the conditions to which the Commission made subject
damages to compensate for the non-material damage                     approval of the programme in question. The applicant
suffered, to which should be added reimbursement of the               affirms in this respect that it has scrupulously complied with
fees of the doctors whom he was obliged to consult in the             both the rules and the conditions and stresses in particular
course of this procedure .                                            the fact that there was never any mention of any prohibition
                                                                      whatsoever on subcontracting. The applicant also claims
                                                                      that, in the present case, there has been a breach of the
                                                                      legitimate expectations flowing from the initial approval of
                                                                      the project.
Action brought on 20 July 1995 by INEF — Instituto
Europeu de Formaçao Profissional, Lda, against the
         Commission of the European Communities
                       ( Case T-151 /95 )
                         ( 95/C 268/55 )                              Action brought on 24 July 1995 by Odette Nicos Petrides
                                                                      Co Inc against the Commission of the European
             (Language of the case: Portuguese)                                                   Communities
                                                                                               ( Case T-152/95 )
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                                                ( 95/C 268/56 )
Instance of the European Communities on 20 July 1995 by
INEF — Instituto Europeu de Formaçao Profissional, Lda,                               (Language of the case: French)
whose registered office is at 85 Rua Breiner, Porto,
represented by Bolota Belchior, of the Vila Nova de Gaia              An action against the Commission of the European
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                 Communities was brought before the Court of First
Chambers of Dr Jacques Schroeder, Faltz & Associés, 6 Rue             Instance of the European Communities on 24 July 1995 by
Heinrich Heine, Luxembourg.                                           Odette Nicos Petrides Co Inc, established at Kavala
                                                                      ( Greece ), represented by Edouard Didier and Joël Grange,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                           of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
— annul the decision of the Commission of 2 December
                                                                      at the Chambers of Carlos Zeyen, 67 Rue Ermesinde .
     1991 , notified to the applicant by a letter from the
     Commission of 12 May 1995 ,                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
— order the Commission to pay the costs .                             — declare that the Commission has incurred liability
                                                                           pursuant to the second paragraph of Article 215 of the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                        Treaty of Rome,
The applicant, a Portuguese sociedade por quotas ( limited            — consequently, order the Commission to make good the
liability company ), challenges a decision of the Commission               damage suffered by the applicant and to pay to the latter
in which it decided not to consider eligible, within the                   the sum of ECU 20 403 788 ,
meaning of the Community rules on the European Social
Fund ( ESF) programmes, certain expenditure in respect of a           — order the Commission to pay all of the costs and
training programme intended for 2 740 young persons . On                   expenses, evidence of which will be supplied at a later
the basis of that decision, DAFSE ( Departamento para                      date .
Asuntos do Fundo Social Europeu — the Portuguese
 European Social Fund Agency) required the applicant to                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
 repay Esc 17 323 265 and Esc 14 173 581 in connection
 with the contributions of the European Social Fund and the            The applicant, a company incorporated under Greek law,
 Portuguese State respectively in the context of financing the         engaged primarily in the processing and sale of tobacco in
 aforementioned programme .                                            Greece and abroad, claims compensation for the damage
                                                                       suffered by it as a result of the Commission's refusal , in June,
 The applicant alleges in the first place that Article 190 of the      August and November 1990 , to allocate to the applicant
 Treaty has been infringed since the contested decision does           certain consignments of tobacco held by the Greek
 not state any reasons or grounds whatsoever for finding not           intervention agency, despite the fact that it had offered the
 eligible the expenditure in question .                                best terms . Thereafter, it was not until 11 months later that
                                                                       those stocks were again placed on the market, but on terms
 Furthermore, the decision is contrary to the rights of the            which a medium-sized undertaking such as the applicant
 defence of the applicant since it was adopted without the             could not possibly fulfil. The Commission decided to sell
 applicant having been heard beforehand.                               105 986 276 kg, divided into 11 consignments. Each of
 Thirdly, contrary to Article 6 of Regulation (EEC)                    those consignments comprised quantities of tobacco of a
 No 2950/83 , the Commission did not give a hearing to the             specified variety which were held by the intervention
 Portuguese State before taking the disputed decision.                 agencies of the various Member States of the Community
                                                                       concerned . That consolidation made it virtually impossible
 Finally, the applicant alleges that there has been an                 for small and medium-sized undertakings to have access to
 infringement of the applicable Community rules as well as of          the tobacco in question, in view of the considerable volumes