CELEX: C1995/351/36
Language: en
Date: 1995-12-30 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 2 November 1995 by Maria de los Angeles Ibarra Gil against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-207/95)

No C 351 / 18           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    30 . 12 . 95
Treaty by two post offices which relied upon a market                            legitimate expectations, non-discrimination and
allocation     scheme     set  out   in  the  Universal     Postal               sound administration .
Convention. The behaviour in question of the post offices
named in the complaint was directed towards suppressing                (>) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 12 .
or restraining 'remail' competition , a practice whereby a             ( 2 ) OJ No C 189 , 22 . 7 . 1995 , p . 17.
mailer prepares international mail in one country but posts            (<) OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 , p . 22 .
the mail not with the post office of that country but with a
post office located in another country .
On 23 November 1994 , the applicant called on the
Commission to act, under Article 175 , by adopting a                   Action brought on 3 November 1995 by Josef Gierse against
definitive position on the complaint as far as Article 85 is           the Council of the European Union and the Commission of
concerned . On 15 February 1995 , not having received any                                 the European Communities
decision from the Commission, the applicant lodged at the
                                                                                                ( Case T-206/95 )
Court of First Instance an application under Article 175
against the Commission for failure to act ( Case T-28/95 ) ( ! ).                                  ( 95/C 351 /35 )
On 17 February 1995 , the Commission adopted Decision
SG(95 ) D/ 1790, rejecting as regards Article 85 of the EC                              (Language of the case: German)
Treaty, the complaint made by the applicant. The applicant
challenged that Decision by its application of 18 April 1995           An action against the Council of the European Union and
( Case T-l 10/95 ) ( 2 ). On 6 April 1995 , the Commission             the Commission of the European Communities was brought
adopted Decision SG(95)D/4438 , rejecting the second part              before the Court of First Instance of the European
of the aforementioned complaint. The applicant sought the               Communities on 3 November 1995 by Josef Gierse, residing
annulment of that Decision by its application of 20 June               at Schmallenberg ( Federal Republic of Germany ),
 1995 ( Case T-133/95 ) ( 3 ). On 14 August 1995 , the                 represented by Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing,
Commission further adopted the purported Decision, which                Dietrich Manstetten, Dr Frank Schulze and Dr Winfried
is contested here, rejecting the complaint with respect to the          Haneklaus, Rechtsanwälte, Münster, with an address for
application of Article 25 of the Universal Postal Convention            service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dupong &
solely to ABC remail by the German, UK and French post                  Associés, 14a Rue des Bains .
offices .
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
In this respect the applicant submits the following pleas in
 law:                                                                   ( 1 ) order the defendants jointly and severally to pay to the
                                                                              applicant milk quota compensation ( SLOM-III ) for the
— as a principal plea, that the Commission's purported                        period from 2 April 1984 to 31 March 1993 ,
    Decision of 14 August 1995 should be declared                             amounting to DM 14 219,09, together with 8%
    non-existent because it constitutes a manifestly illegal                  interest from 19 May 1992 , and to pay the costs of the
    act ,                                                                     proceedings;
— in the alternative, that the Decision should be annulled,             ( 2 ) stay the proceedings .
    on the grounds of:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    — infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty in that
          the Commission fails to state its reasons ( i ) as to the     The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
          allegation that the Post Offices' use of Article 25 of        in Case T-20/94 .
          the UPU Convention infringes Article 85 of the EC
          Treaty, and ( ii ) as to the fact that it adopted two
          different positions in respect of the same factual and
          legal situation,
     — infringement of Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty               Action brought on 2 November 1995 by Maria de los
          through the Commission 's failure to condemn the               Angeles Ibarra Gil against the Commission of the European
          Post Offices' efforts to restrain the development of                                       Communities
          ABC remail through the use of the authority and                                        ( Case T-207/95 )
          purported authority of Article 25 of the UPU                                              ( 95/C 351 /36 )
          Convention,
     — misuse of powers in that the Commission's main                                    (Language of the case: French)
          purpose in rejecting the complaint was in fact to
          achieve political objectives,                                  An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities was brought before the Court of First
     — breach of certain general principles of law in that, in           Instance of the European Communities on 2 November
          adopting the decision, the Commission infringed the             1 995 by Maria de los Angeles Ibarra Gil, residing in Brussels
          principles of legal certainty, the protection of               ( Belgium ), represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege
 ---pagebreak--- 30 . 12 . 95          EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 351 / 19
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                Moreover, the Commission itself decided to allow all
Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21 Rue Nassau .                            members of the temporary staff whose entry into service
                                                                     commenced after July 1988 and before March 1992 — as in
The applicant claims that the Court should :                         the case of the applicant — to take part in two competitions,
                                                                     provided that they could show that they had completed not
— declare the action admissible ,                                    less than three years' service as members of the temporary
                                                                     staff. Since the Commission restricted its powers by stating
— declare notice of competition COM/T/B/95 illegal and               that the category of servants eligible for equal treatment as
     inapplicable to the applicant,                                  regards access to competitions leading to establishment was
                                                                     to comprise servants who entered into service within those
— annul the decision of the selection board of 7 November            two dates, the applicant's inability to obtain an extension
     1994    refusing    to    admit    her   to   competition       until 30 September 1994 of her status as a member of the
    COM/T/B/95 ,                                                     temporary staff cannot constitute objective justification for
                                                                     the difference in treatment .
— declare that the decisions by which the Commission
    adopted its general policy regarding temporary staff in          Lastly, the applicant pleads a breach in the present case of
     March 1992 and February 1994 are in breach of the               the duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of
    principles referred to in the applicant's pleas, and declare     officials .
    them inapplicable to the applicant,
— annul the decision of the Commission of 27 July 1995
    refusing to admit her to any competition leading to
    establishment other than competition COM/T/B/95 ,
— order the Commission to pay her damages on account of              Action brought on 3 November 1995 by Miwon Co. Ltd
    the erroneous and prejudicial nature of the contested               against the Commission of the European Communities
    decisions; the applicant reserves the right to submit later                              ( Case T-208/95 )
    on in the proceedings detailed calculations of the loss
    suffered by her,                                                                           ( 95/C 351 /37 )
— order the defendant to pay the costs .                                              (Language of the case: English)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought .before the Court of First
The applicant, formerly a member of the temporary staff in           Instance of the European Communities on 3 November
category B and currently a member, in the same category, of          1995 by Miwon Co . Ltd, represented by Mr Jean-Francois
the auxiliary staff of the Commission, contests the refusal by       Bellis, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
the selection board in internal competition COM/T/B/95 to            Chambers of A. F. Brausch , 8 Rue Zithe .
admit her to the tests in that competition on the ground that
she was not a member of the temporary staff on the date
when she submitted her application . That decision was               The applicant claims that the Court should :
taken on the basis of a notice of competition requiring
candidates to have completed, by 30 September 1994 at the            — annul Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1754/95 of
latest, a minimum of three years' service as a servant of the              18 July 1995 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty
Communities , as defined in the Conditions of Employment                  on imports of monosodium glutamate originating, inter
of other Servants, and to be a member of the temporary staff              alia, in the Republic of Korea in so far as it considers that
in category B on that date .                                              the applicant violated its undertaking and imposes
                                                                          a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of
The applicant points out in that regard that she signed, in               monosodium glutamate manufactured by the applicant,
accordance with the indications given by the administration,              and
a contract of employment as a member of the auxiliary staff
of one month 's duration, in order to be eligible to take part       — order the Commission to pay the costs of these
in a competition leading to establishment. It was in fact for             proceedings .
that reason that the applicant, legitimately believing on the
basis of what she had been told that she would be admitted
to the tests, did not lodge a complaint against the notice of        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
competition in question .
                                                                     The applicant, a limited company established under the laws
The applicant maintains, first, that there has been a breach         of the Republic of Korea, produces a wide range of food and
of the principle of legitimate expectations , inasmuch as she        chemical products , including monosodium glutamate
was given clear assurances by the competent departments of            ( hereinafter ' MSG'), a product used as a flavour enhancer
the Commission that she had the right to take part in the            in food products. It states that on 27 June 1990 , the
competition in question as a member of the auxiliary                  Council adopted Regulation ( F'EC ) No 1798/90 imposing
staff.                                                                a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of MSG