CELEX: C1996/077/30
Language: en
Date: 1996-03-16 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 2 December 1995 by Marie-Thérèse Danielsson, Pierre Largenteau and Edwin Haoa against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-219/95)

No C 77/ 12             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   16 . 3 . 96
Pleas in law and main arguments:                                            — the audi alteram partem principle,
                                                                            — the obligation to give reasons.
The applicant company owns a fish farm at Rosolina, in the
Province of Rovigo, on the coast of the Upper Adriatic . In           ( b ) Contravention of the rules governing application of the
1990 it obtained aid of Lit 1 103 646 181 from the                          EC Treaty, namely infringement of Article 44 of
Commission under reorganization of its fish-rearing                         Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 4028/86 and Article 7 of
installations . Corresponding aid of Lit 827 734 635 was to                 Commission Regulation ( EEC ) No 1116/88 : the
have been paid by Italy .                                                   contested act constitutes a decision surreptitiously
                                                                            reducing the agreed aid, without due compliance with
                                                                            the procedure for suspending, reducing or
                                                                            discontinuing aid, laid down by Article 44 of
When the work was finished, on 23 December 1993 , the                       Regulation ( EEC ) No 4028/86 , and without prior
applicant applied to the competent Italian Ministry and to                  fulfilment of the corresponding requirements which are
the Commission for a certificate that the project had been                  binding on the Commission pursuant to Article 7 of the
finally carried out. The Italian Ministry arranged, by note of              implementing Regulation ( EEC ) No 1116/88 .
8 February 1994, for the prior on-site technical inspection
by the Ufficio del Genio Civile ( Civil Engineer's
Department ), which is required under Italian law. Following          (c ) Misuse of powers: the Commission has made use of its
the inspection, that Department reported both to the                        'consultative' power in order to bring about a wholly
applicant and to the Ministry, stating that the work in                     different result, namely the effective reduction of the
                                                                            aid .
question differed in some respects from the project. On
1 February 1995 the Ministry's inspectors inspected the
work finally carried out, within their sphere of competence,
and issued the relevant certificate on 25 May 1995 . In that          If the contested act is annulled, as requested, it will be a
certificate, inter alia they repeat the findings of the Civil         simple matter to find that the institution which adopted that
                                                                      act has caused the applicant, as the beneficiary of the aid,
Engineer's Department and give details of further disparities
with respect to the project. Consequently, according to the           damage for which compensation is payable under
Ministry, the total reckonable expenditure for the purposes           Articles 178 and 215 of the EC Treaty, corresponding to the
of calculation of the aid was no longer Lit 2 627 729 000, as         considerable reduction of the aid granted, both the amount
fixed by the Commission's initial decision on the project,            payable by the European Union and that payable by Italy.
but Lit 1 907 350 101 , a reduction of Lit 720 378 899 . The          Application is made for compensation in an amount not less
applicant submitted written observations challenging the              than the compensatory or default interest on the contested
Ministerial Inspectors ' report, claiming that it was                 sum to reflect the heavy financial burden imposed on the
                                                                      applicant.
unfounded and requesting a review. On 14 November 1995
the Ministry informed the applicant that its request for a
review had been refused, the most significant factor in this
context being that the Ministerial communication expressly
states that it is in full conformity with an opinion expressed
by the Commission by note of 27 October 1995 . The present
application is against that act of the Commission since,
although adopted in the form of a different measure, it is in
fact a decision which directly adversely affects the                  Action brought on 2 December 1995 by Marie-Therese
applicant's interests, in that its twofold effect is to reduce the    Danielsson, Pierre Largenteau and Edwin Haoa against the
aid from the Community and that from the Member                                Commission of the European Communities
State .                                                                                       ( Case T-2 19/95 )
                                                                                                 ( 96/C 77/30 )
The following pleas in law are put forward in support of the                          (Language of the case: English)
application:
                                                                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities was brought before the Court of First
( a ) Infringement of essential procedural requirements : the         Instance of the European Communities on 2 December
      contested act neither satisfies nor complies with the            1995 by Marie-Therese Danielsson, Pierre Largenteau and
      procedural requirements laid down by Community law              Edwin Haoa, all residents of Tahiti ( French Polynesia ),
      in order to protect the substantive interests of                represented by Phon van den Biesen, of Van den Biesen
      individuals subject to it, namely:                              Prakken Bohler, Amsterdam, and Denis Waelbroek, of
                                                                      Liedekerke Wolters Waelbroek & Kilpatrick, Brussels,
      — the principle of collegiality applying to the                 assisted by Dr Gerrit Betlem, Nederlands Instituut voor
          Commission 's actions ,                                     Sociaal en Economisch Recht, Utrecht, and by Sven
                                                                      Deimann, Johann W. Goethe Universitat Frankfurt am
                                                                      Main; with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
      — the Community principle of legal certainty,                   office of Dei Greng, 31 , Grand-rue .
 ---pagebreak--- 16 . 3 . 96        [ EN 1                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 77/ 13
The applicants claim that the Court should :                        Action brought on 13 December 1995 by Société Fotini
                                                                    Chiou against the Commission of the European
— annul the European Commission's Decision of                                                 Communities
    23 October 1995 regarding French nuclear tests,                                        ( Case T-225/95 )
                                                                                              ( 96/C 77/31 )
— order the Commission to pay the costs of these
     proceedings .
                                                                                   (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments:
The applicants, three citizens and residents of Tahiti ( French
Polynesia ), challenge the decision of the Commission of            An action against the Commission of the European
23 October 1995 , granting its assent under Article 34 ( 2 ) of     Communities was brought before the Court of First
the EAEC Treaty in relation to the French nuclear tests on          Instance of the European Communities on 13 December
the Pacific atoll of Mururoa . Alternatively, the present           1995 by Fotini Chiou, residing in Brussels, represented by
application should be considered as being brought against           Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
the decision by which the Commission refused to consider            in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Christian Kremer, 8-10
                                                                    Rue Mathias Hardt .
that Article 34 was applicable to the French nuclear
tests .
They submit that the defendant institution has, through this        The applicant claims that the Court should :
decision and the way in which it was reached, violated its
obligations under Community law, specifically under the
Euratom Treaty and Council Directive 88/835/Euratom . It            — annul the decision rejecting her complaint against the
is stressed on this point that the Commission should have                Commission's decision of 18 November 1994 ,
applied a purposive intepretation of the notion of
'particularly dangerous experiment' ( Article 34 ), which at a
minimum, in the light of the preamble of the EC Treaty,             — as far as is necessary, annul the decision of the
should have focused on the prevention of health and safety               Commission of 1 8 November excluding her from the list
hazards, rather than merely providing an interpretation                  of successful candidates in the internal competition
which restricts itself to 'a perceptible risk of significant             for movement of officials from Category C to
exposure of workers and the general public to ionizing                   Category B,
radiation '. On the basis of this purposive interpretation the
Commission should have conducted a much more extensive
                                                                    — order the defendant to pay the costs .
and thorough research into the possible health and safety
hazards involved .
Moreover, in applying Article 34 of the EAEC Treaty the             Pleas in law and main arguments:
Commission must take into account all three of the basic
principles contained in Article 6 of the Directive; i.e. the
justification of every activity resulting in an exposure to         In support of her action, the applicant submits pleas in law
ionizing radiation by the advantages that it produces, the 'as      and arguments similar to those put forward in Case
                                                                    T- 15 9/95 .
low as reasonably achievable' principle and the necessity of
specific dose-limits . However, the Commission has, without
any motivation, restricted itself to the third aspect alone .       She too bases her application on a manifest error of
                                                                    assessment, pointing out, first, that she holds several
The Commission has also ignored relevant rules of                   university qualifications and since 1992 has been
international law, including the 1982 United Nations                performing duties which are well beyond those of
Convention on the Law of the Sea , the 1985 Asean                   Category C and, secondly, that her performance in the oral
Agreement on the Conservation of Nature and Natural                 test deserved a mark higher than the minimum required . In
Resources, the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity.             addition, the applicant claims that the person who was
                                                                    chairman of the selection board did not possess the
                                                                    necessary independence to assess her aptitude , since that
Finally, it is further submitted that the European                  person was also the chairman of the selection board in a
Commission has violated fundamental rights of the                   previous competetion, the result of which forms the subject
applicants including, but not limited to, the right to life as      of an action brought by the applicant before the Court of
guaranteed in Article 2 of the European Convention on               First Instance; in that respect, she pleads infringement of
 Human Rights and Article 6 of the International Covenant           Article 14 of the Staff Regulations of officials and also of the
on Civil and Political Rights, and also the right to privacy         rules governing the activities of selection boards .
 and family life as guaranteed in Article 8 of the European
 Convention on Human Rights .