CELEX: C2000/122/58
Language: en
Date: 2000-04-29 00:00:00
Title: Case T-31/00: Action brought on 16 February 2000 by BSB Fleischimport against the Commission of the European Communities

C 122/38               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    29.4.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             European Communities on 16 February 2000 by BSB Fleisch-
                                                                        import, whose registered office is in Berlin, represented by
— annul the Selection Board’s decision not to admit the                 Dietrich Ehle and Dirk Ehle, Rechtsanwälte, Cologne, with an
    applicant to the oral tests in internal competition CdR             address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc
    B/01/98;                                                            Lucius, Rechtsanwalt, 6 Rue Michel Welter.
— order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         — annul the Commission’s decision (REM 2/99) of 8 Nov-
                                                                            ember 1999;
The applicant, who is an official in Grade C with the Economic
and Social Committee, argues that the Selection Board did not
admit him to the tests on the basis of an unlawful notice of            — order the Commission to pay the costs.
competition. Both in endorsing that notice and in adopting
the contested decision, the appointing authority acted contrary
to the principle of sound administration and infringed Article
27 of the Staff Regulations.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of his claims, the applicant submits:
                                                                        The contested decision refuses an application by the Federal
— the contested decision unlawfully excludes the applicant
                                                                        Republic of Germany for authorisation to waive duties of DEM
    on the ground that he does not possess a certificate of
                                                                        187 011,60 on the applicant’s importation of beef from
    secondary education, even though he has a university
                                                                        Argentina. The Hauptzollamt Essen demanded post-clearance
    qualification at least equivalent thereto;
                                                                        recovery of that amount on the ground that certificates of
                                                                        genuineness presented in the course of the clearance procedure
— in requiring Grade B status as a condition for admission,             were forgeries.
    the notice of competition wrongly excluded candidates
    possessing equivalent, or even higher, qualifications;
                                                                        The applicant maintains that there has been an infringement
— the contested decision excludes the applicant on the                  of essential procedural rights, in that it has unlawfully been
    ground that he does not possess the requisite professional
                                                                        refused access to the administrative files of the Commission. It
    experience specified by the notice of competition, notwith-
                                                                        also maintains that the decision reveals a significant defect in
    standing the fact that, within the Economic and Social              reasoning, as it entirely fails to reflect the judgment of the
    Committee, he has handled tasks entailing responsibility
                                                                        Court of First Instance in Case T-42/96 Eyckeler & Malt v
    and independent organisation.
                                                                        Commission [1998] ECR II-401, even though that judgment
                                                                        concerned a legal and factual situation that was virtually
                                                                        identical and the applicant had pointed that out.
                                                                        The applicant further accuses the Commission of a manifest
                                                                        error of assessment in applying Article 13 of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                        No 1430/79. Post-clearance recovery from the applicant
Action brought on 16 February 2000 by BSB Fleischim-                    resulted from obvious omissions of the Commission in
port against the Commission of the European Communi-                    inspecting the quotas of ‘Hilton beef’. Had the Commission
                               ties                                     conducted itself properly, post-clearance recovery would have
                                                                        been avoided. Post-clearance recovery was, moreover, inequi-
                                                                        table, as the applicant had dealt in good faith. In the light of
                         (Case T-31/00)                                 these circumstances, the applicant’s normal business risk was
                                                                        exceeded. The Commission was therefore wrong to proceed
                                                                        on the basis that there were no special circumstances within
                        (2000/C 122/58)                                 the meaning of Article 13 of that regulation, and its decision
                                                                        should be annulled.
                  (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the