CELEX: C2000/259/43
Language: en
Date: 2000-09-09 00:00:00
Title: Case T-130/00: Action brought on 15 May 2000 by Javier Reyna González del Valle against the Commission of the European Communities

9.9.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 259/23
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               Auditors of the European Communities — application for
                                                                          suspension of operation of the decision of 15 May 2000
                          of 28 June 2000                                 relieving the applicant from her position as team leader in the
                                                                          Italian section of the translation service — the President of the
                                                                          Court of First Instance made an order on 3 July 2000, the
in Case T-338/99: Lily Karoline Schuerer v Council of the
                                                                          operative part of which is as follows:
                        European Union (1)
                                                                          1.    The application for interim measures is dismissed.
(Retirement pension — Weighting — Action for annulment
                        — Inadmissibility)                                2.    The costs are reserved.
                          (2000/C 259/41)
                   (Language of the case: German)
In Case T-338/99: Lily Karoline Schuerer, a former official of            Action brought on 15 May 2000 by Javier Reyna Gonzá-
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in                   lez del Valle against the Commission of the European
Munich (Germany), represented by H.J. Winzen and M. Anger-                                            Communities
maier, Rechtsanwälte, Munich, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of M. Steil, 12 Rue d’Anvers, v                                          (Case T-130/00)
Council of the European Union (Agents: M. Bauer and
P.M. Cossu) — application for a declaration that, by applying
to the calculation of the applicant’s pension a weighting for                                       (2000/C 259/43)
Germany which was not fixed on the basis of the cost of living
in Berlin, the Council has infringed the EC Treaty — the Court
of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of: K. Lenaerts,                                 (Language of the case: Spanish)
President, and J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
made an order on 28 June 2000, the operative part of which                An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
is as follows:                                                            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 15 May 2000 by Javier Reyna
1.    The action is dismissed as inadmissible;                            González del Valle, residing in Madrid, represented by José
                                                                          Marı́a Valoria de Arana, lawyer.
2.    The applicant is to pay the costs.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
                                                                          —     ‘partially’ annul the Commission’s decisions appointing
                                                                                the applicant initially as a probationer official (decision
                                                                                of 28 March 1989, taking effect from 1 March 1989) and
                                                                                subsequently as an official definitively classed in grade B3
                                                                                (decision of 14 November 1989, taking effect from
                                                                                1 December 1989), but only inasmuch as those decisions
                                                                                classified him in grade 3 of category B instead of grade 1,
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                                    that being the grade corresponding to him;
                            INSTANCE
                                                                          —     declare that the applicant is entitled to pecuniary compen-
                           of 3 July 2000                                       sation corresponding to the remuneration which he
                                                                                would have received if, as should have happened, he had
in Case T-163/00 R: Rosemarie Carotti v Court of Audi-                          been appointed a grade B1 official, and which he did not
              tors of the European Communities                                  receive, during the period running from his appointment
                                                                                as a probationer official to the present time, together with
                                                                                interest at the statutory rate;
        (Proceedings for interim relief — Admissibility)
                                                                          —     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                          (2000/C 259/42)
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          The applicant in the present case contests his appointment in
In Case T-163/00 R: Rosemarie Carotti, an official of the                 grade 3 of category B. He maintains in that connection that
Court of Auditors of the European Communities, residing in                that appointment must be regarded as erroneous, inasmuch
Luxembourg, represented by G. Vogel and F. Burg, of the                   as, having been called to attend interviews in competitions
Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg                 COM/B/611 (B 1) and COM/B/612 (B 2/3), the applicant never
at the latter’s Chambers, 42 Boulevard Joseph II, v Court of              attended the interview corresponding to the latter competition.
 ---pagebreak--- C 259/24               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       9.9.2000
In support of his claim, the applicant asserts:                          —     order that the costs be borne by the defendant.
—    that it is not appropriate to take into consideration the           Pleas in law and main arguments
     fact that the time-limits laid down in Articles 90 and 91
     of the Staff Regulations were not complied with, since,             The applicant claims that Article 1 of the contested decision
     first, the fact that the interview before the selection board       should be annulled in so far as it only declares Article 30(3) of
     in competition COM/B/612 did not take place and that
                                                                         Greek Law 2040/92 of 17/23.4.1992 (Greek Government
     the applicant did not attend the medical examination                Gazette No A’ 70 of 23.4.1992) as incompatible with the
     specifically referable to that competition gave rise to an
                                                                         common market.
     overwhelming state of uncertainty and, second, what
     happened in the present case amounts a defect rendering
     the contested decisions not voidable but absolutely void;           This application is based on the following grounds:
                                                                         —     There has been a manifest error of assessment of the facts
—    that the applicant did not sit the test corresponding to                  on the part of the Commission in concluding that
     competition COM/B/612 but that relating to competition                    Article 30(1) of Law 2040/92, imposing on ginning
     COM/B/611, and that the medical examination which he                      plants the obligation to pay to the Greek Cotton Board a
     attended and passed satisfactorily was expressly referable                levy amounting to 1 % of the total purchase price paid to
     to grade B1 principal assistants;                                         the growers per kilogram of delivered unginned cotton
                                                                               grown in Greece, is consonant with the market organis-
                                                                               ation.
—    that it is one thing to enter into service on the date
     proposed and quite another thing to accept the grade                —     There has been a manifest error of assessment of the facts
     proposed.                                                                 on the part of the Commission in failing to declare
                                                                               Article 30(1) of Law 2040/92 as incompatible with the
                                                                               common market.
                                                                         —     There has been a manifest error on the part of the
                                                                               Commission in failing to analyse separately the compati-
                                                                               bility of Law 2040/92 in relation with the EC State aids
                                                                               discipline.
                                                                         —     In the contested decision, the Commission totally failed
                                                                               to provide sufficient reasoning for refusing to analyse the
Action brought on 2 June 2000 by the Panhellenic Union                         compatibility of Article 30(1) of Law 2040/92 under the
of Cotton Ginners and Exporters against the Commission                         EC State Aid rules.
                 of the European Communities
                                                                         —     Alternatively, the Commission has committed a violation
                                                                               of an essential procedural requirement by taking an
                          (Case T-148/00)                                      extraordinarily long time in concluding the formal investi-
                                                                               gation procedure under Article 88(2) EC.
                          (2000/C 259/44)
                                                                         (1) OJ L 63, p. 27.
                   (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Action brought on 7 June 2000 by Maria Kayamanidou
European Communities on 2 June 2000 by the Panhellenic                     against the Commission of the European Communities
Union of Cotton Ginners and Exporters, represented by
Dr. Konstantinos Adamantopoulos, Vassilis Akritidis and Juan                                      (Case T-152/00)
José Gutiérrez Gisbert of Hammond Suddards, Brussels.
                                                                                                  (2000/C 259/45)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                             (Language of the case: French)
—    annul Article 1 of Commission Decision 2000/206/EC of
     20 July 1999 (1) on an aid scheme applied in Greece to              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
     cotton by the Greek Cotton Board, in so far as it only              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
     declares Article 30(3) of Law 2040/92 of 17/23.4.1992,              European Communities on 7 June 2000 by Maria Kayamani-
     and not Article 30(1) as well, as incompatible with the             dou, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersand-
     common market; and                                                  en, of the Brussels Bar.