CELEX: C1999/281/48
Language: en
Date: 1999-10-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-172/99: Action brought on 26 July 1999 by Francesca Pentericci against the Commission of the European Communities

2.10.1999              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 281/25
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty. On 23 April 1999,
                                                                        the Commission repaid to the applicant the sum of EUR
    pursuant to Article 40 CS:                                          12 million. It declared however that it considered that it was
                                                                        not required to pay interest on this sum.
    — order the Commission to pay to British Steel the sum
         of GBP 3 533 474, or such other sum as the Court               The applicant submits that, having imposed and received
         deems appropriate:                                             payment of a fine which was, to the extent identified by the
                                                                        Court, unlawful, the Commission has wrongly refused to pay
                                                                        the applicant pecuniary reparation in the form of interest on
    — order the Commission to pay to British Steel interest             the fine paid by it. As a direct result of this attitude of the
         at a rate which the Court considers to be just in all the      Commission, which constitutes a ‘wrongful act or omission’
         circumstances on the sum of GBP 3 533 474 (or such             within the meaning of Article 40 CS, the applicant has suffered
         other sum, as aforesaid) from 24 April 1999 until final        considerable monetary loss. The Commission should therefore
         judgment of this Court;                                        be ordered to pay it compensation equivalent to its loss of
                                                                        earnings on the sum of ECU/EUR 12 million from the date
    — order the Commission to pay to British Steel interest             when the fine was paid by it until 23 April 1999, together
         at 8 % on such compensation as the Court orders to be          with interest on that sum until the date of payment.
         paid under subparagraphs (a) and (b) above as from
         the date of the Court’s final judgment in this case until      In the alternative, the applicant submits that the Commission
         payment thereof;                                               is liable to it pursuant Article 34 CS. According to the
                                                                        provisions of that article, where a decision of the Commission
    or, in the alternative: pursuant to Article 34 CS:                  has been declared void by the Court, the Commission should
                                                                        take the necessary measures to comply with the judgement. If,
                                                                        within a reasonable time, the Commission has failed to take
    — declare that Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC was
                                                                        the necessary steps to comply with the judgment, proceedings
         vitiated by faults of such nature as to render the
                                                                        for damages may be instituted. In the present case, the
         Community fiable;
                                                                        Commission has failed to take the necessary measures to
                                                                        comply with the judgment since it has not effected a full
    — declare that, as a result of the Commission’s fault,              restitutio in integrum by compensating the applicant for its loss
         British steel has suffered direct and special harm in          of earnings on the sum of fine unlawfully imposed by the
         being unlawfully deprived of the use of ECU/EUR                Commission.
         12 000 000 from the date of payment of that sum to
         the Commission on 2 June 1994;
                                                                        (1) OJ 1994 L 116/1.
    — refer the case to the Commission and order it to adopt
         appropriate measures in order to ensure equitable
         redress for the harm directly resulting from the Com-
         mission’s conduct, and to pay appropriate damages as
         far as may be necessary;
    and in either case:
                                                                        Action brought on 26 July 1999 by Francesca Pentericci
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
    — order the Commission to pay British Steel’s costs.
                                                                                                  (Case T-172/99)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                                  (1999/C 281/48)
The applicant states that on 16 February 1994 the Commission
adopted Decision 94/215/ECSC relating to a proceeding                                        (Language of the case: Italian)
pursuant to Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning agree-
ments and concerted practices engaged in by European
producers of beams (the ‘Decision’) (1). A fine of ECU 32 mil-          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
lion was imposed on the applicant. On 13 April 1994, the                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
applicant lodged an application for the annulment of the                European Communities on 26 July 1999 by Francesca Pente-
Decision al the Court of First Instance (Case T-151/94).                ricci, represented by Marcello Pentericci, of the Ancona Bar,
Nevertheless, on 2 June 1994, it paid to the Commission the             with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
entirety of the fine imposed on it.                                     Jean Brucher, 10 Rue de Vianden.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
On 11 March 1999, the Court delivered its judgment in Case
T-151/94. In the judgment, the Court sets the amount of the             — annul the decision by which the selection board in
fine imposed on the applicant at EUR 20 million. For the claim               competition No COM A/12/98 refused to admit her to the
for interest, the Court notes that it is for the Commission to               written tests in the competition, and consequently order
take the necessary steps to comply with the judgment, in                     that she be admitted thereto;
 ---pagebreak--- C 281/26               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     2.10.1999
— order the selection board to pay compensation for the                  — annul any recruitments made by the Commission in
    damage caused, in such amount as the Court shall consider                consequence of competition No COM/A/15/98 and on the
    fair and reasonable;                                                     basis of the lists of suitable candidates published in the
                                                                             Official Journal on 3 July 1999;
— order the selection board to pay the costs, pursuant to
    Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure.                                — order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant contests the decision of the selection board in            The applicants contest, in particular, the manner in which
competition No COM A/12/98 by which it decided, on the                   competition No COM/A/15/98 was conducted and the results
ground that she allegedly lacked the minimum requisite                   thereof. They maintain in that connection that the competition
professional experience, as provided for in the competition              notice provided for two options, namely ‘fraud prevention’
notice, not admit her to the written tests.                              and ‘justice and home affairs’. According to the applicants, the
                                                                         tests in respect of the ‘justice and home affairs’ option related
In support of her claims, the applicant advances the following           very extensively to the combatting of fraud, with the result
pleas:                                                                   that there was discrimination in favour of candidates who had
                                                                         chosen the first option.
— infringement and misapplication of Article III(3) of the
    notice of competition;                                               In support of their claims, the applicants plead:
— breach of the obligation to provide a statement of reasons;            — infringement of the terms of the competition notice;
    and
                                                                         — contravention of the principle of equality between candi-
— failure to have regard to the general principle of sound                   dates;
    administration and transparency.
                                                                         — failure to observe the principle of sound administration;
According to the applicant, the competition notice recognised                and
as valid evidence of professional experience periods of appren-          — misuse of powers in the present case.
ticeship, specialisation or professional training, apart from
supplementary training periods. She maintains in that regard
                                                                         In the latter regard, the applicants maintain that the defendant
that the Commission failed to take account of all the certificates
                                                                         used the procedure for pre-selection on the basis of the
and attestations contained in the competition file. At all events,
                                                                         documentation in order to attempt to eliminate the partici-
had the defendant considered that documentation was unclear,
                                                                         pation of Mr Mazuel as a candidate in the competition. In
it should at least have asked for explanatory clarification in
                                                                         addition, it is clear from a comparison between the directory
relation to it.
                                                                         of Commission staff and the names of the persons included in
                                                                         the list of suitable candidates that the competition was
                                                                         organised with a view to offering establishment to contractual
                                                                         agents of the Commission and not with a view to the
                                                                         external recruitment of true specialists possessing skills and
                                                                         qualifications corresponding to the objectives publicised in the
                                                                         notice of competition.
Action brought on 29 July 1999 by Gilbert Elkaïm and
Philippe Mazuel against the Commission of the European
                          Communities
                         (Case T-173/99)
                         (1999/C 281/49)                                 Action brought on 30 July 1999 by Ana Caprile and
                                                                         Others against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                                      munities
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                                  (Case T-174/99)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                        (1999/C 281/50)
European Communities on 29 July 1999 by Gilbert Elkaïm
residing in Paris, and Philippe Mazuel, residing in Brussels,
represented by Nicolas Ravailhe, of the Brussels Bar, with an                               (Language of the case: French)
address for service at the latter’s Chambers, 6 Rue Hydraulique,
Brussels.                                                                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              European Communities on 30 July 1999 by Ana Caprile,
— annul open competition No COM/A/15/98;                                 residing in Belgium, Fabrizio Dell’Olio, residing in Italy, and
                                                                         Konrad Fuhrmann and Olivier Radelet, residing in Belgium,
— annul the lists of suitable candidates published, following            represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the
    that competition, on 3 July 1999 in the Official Journal (OJ         Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
    C 187, p. 22);                                                       offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.