CELEX: C1997/331/41
Language: en
Date: 1997-11-01 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 24 July 1997 by H & R Ecroyd Holdings Ltd. against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-220/97)

1 . 11 . 97               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 331/19
common market — the Court of First Instance (Fifth                          Action brought on 24 July 1997 by H & R Ecroyd
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: R.                             Holdings Ltd. against the Commission of the European
Garcia-Valdecasas, President, V. Tiili, J. Azizi, R. M.                                                Communities
Moura Ramos and M. Jaeger, Judges; A. Mair,                                                         ( Case T-220/97)
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
25 September 1997, in which it:                                                                       ( 97/C 331/41 )
1 . annuls the decision reproduced in Commission notice                                      (Language of the case: English)
       94/C 400/02 pursuant to Article 6 (4) of Decision
       No 3855/91 /ECSC          to   other Member States and
       interested parties concerning aid which Luxembourg                   An action against the Commission of the European
       plans to grant to ProfilARBED SA (Arbed) (State Aid                  Communities was brought before the Court of First
       C 25/94 (ex N 11 /94));                                              Instance of the European Communities on 24 July 1997
                                                                            by H & R Ecroyd Holdings Ltd., represented by William
2 . orders the Commission to pay the costs;                                 Neville, Peter Duffy and Philippa Watson, with an address
                                                                            for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Elvinger
                                                                            Hoss and Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill.
3 . orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and Arbed
       SA to bear their own costs.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court should:
H OJ C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .
( 2 ) OJ C 400, 31 . 12 . 1994, p . 10 .
                                                                            — annul the Commission's decision contained in its letter
                                                                                 dated 16 May 1997 addressed to the applicant's
                                                                                 solicitor, and
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                            — order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs of
                                                                                 the proceedings.
                            of 9 July 1997
in Case T-63/96: Augusto Fichtner v. Commission of the
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                     European Communities (')
 (Officials — Staff reports — Complaint — Implicit
     rejection — Manifest inadmissibility of the application)               The applicant refers to the preliminary ruling of the Court
                                                                            of Justice of 6 June 1996 in Case C-127/94 (The Queen v.
                             ( 97/C 331/40 )                                Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte: H
                                                                            & R Ecroyd Holdings Ltd. and John Rupert Ecroyd
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                           [ 1996] ECR 1-2731 ), hereinafter 'the judgment', holding
                                                                            that producers such as the applicant had been unlawfully
In Case T-63/96 : Augusto Fichtner, an official of the                      excluded from the award of a special reference quantity
Commission of the European Communities, residing at                         under Article 3a ( 1 ) of Regulation (EEC ) No 857/84 of
Besozzo ( Italy ), represented by Vincenzo Salvatore, of the                31 March 1984 adopting general rules for the application
Pavia Bar, v. Commission of the European Communities                        of the levy referred to in Article 5c of Regulation ( EEC )
 (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Alberto dal Ferro) —                       No 804/68 in the milk and milk products sector, as
application, first, for annulment of the Commission's                       amended by Regulation (EEC ) No 764/89 of 20 March
                                                                            1989 .
decision of 12 February 1996 expressly rejecting the
 applicant's complaint of 14 February 1995 concerning his
 staff report for the period from 1 July 1991 to 30 June                    The applicant challenges the Commission's decision of
 1993 and, second, for damages for the material and non­                     16 May 1997 asserting that it has no obligation to ensure
 material loss allegedly suffered by the applicant — the                    that effect is given to the judgment. In consequence of this
 Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber ), composed of:
                                                                            refusal, the applicant remains unlawfully deprived of
 K. Lenaerts, President; P. Lindh and J. D. Cooke, Judges;                  quota since 1989 and is suffering severe and continuous
 H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 9 July 1997, the                      loss .
 operative part of which is as follows :
 I. The        application       is      dismissed    as    manifestly      The applicant pleads infringement of Articles 155 and 176
        inadmissible;                                                       of the EC Treaty and of fundamental rights. Articles 155
                                                                             and 176 impose legal obligations on the Commission to
                                                                            take the 'necessary steps to comply with' a ruling of the
 2 . The parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
                                                                             Court, and according to the Court's case-law, the
                                                                             Commission is obliged 'to review the individual situation'
 w OJ C 233 , 10. 8 . 1996 .                                                 of a person who has been the victim of unlawful
                                                                             treatment. The Commission's position displays a serious
                                                                             misunderstanding of its clear obligations .
 ---pagebreak--- C 331 /20            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     1 . 11 . 97
As regards the fundamental rights violated in this case,             He explains that a previous decision of the Administrative
reference is made to Article F of the Treaty on European             Committee of the Court of Justice of 14 June 1995 not to
Union as well as to the case-law of the European Court of            initiate the procedure leading to his establishment as a
Human Rights establishing that milk quota is a property              permanent official is the subject matter of proceedings
right entitled to due process protection in accordance with          pending before the Court of First Instance ( ! ). In the
Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.                course of those proceedings, the defendant institution
In addition, this Court has expressly ruled that it is               contested the admissibility of the action on the ground
incompatible with respect for fundamental rights for a               that the contested decision was not an individuial decision
political institution to refuse to execute a judgment or             which adversely affected the applicant. Accordingly the
arbitral award given against it. Therefore, the                      applicant caused two further steps to be taken in order to
Commission's refusal to ensure that effect is properly               ensure that the substance of his case would be ruled upon:
given to the ruling of the Court of Justice in the                   ( 1 ) on 9 September 1996 he made a request of the
applicant's favour is as much a breach of fundamental                President of the Court (the appointing authority in the
rights as actions of Governments in comparable cases                 matter) under Article 90 ( 1 ) of the Staff Regulations to be
which the European Court of Human rights, vindicating                appointed as an established official; (2 ) by memorandum
fundamental rights and the rule of law, had robustly                 of 1 October 1996 the member to whom the applicant is
condemned .                                                          attached made a request of the President under the
                                                                     decision of the Administrative Meeting of the Court of
                                                                     Justice of 30 June 1976 which states, inter alia, that the
                                                                     appointment procedure may be initiated after three years'
                                                                     service on a proposal from the Member concerned .
Action brought on 29 July 1997 by John Mellet against
                                                                     By memorandum of 17 October 1996 the President
     the Court of Justice of the European Communities
                                                                     decided to refuse the request of 1 October 1996 and not
                       ( Case T-221/97)                              to organize an internal competition to appoint a driver as
                         ( 97/C 331 /42 )
                                                                     a permanent official. The applicant maintains that this
                                                                     decision :
               (Language of the case: English)
                                                                     — was adopted in breach of the essential procedural
                                                                           requirements contained in Article 25 of the Staff
An action against the Court of Justice of the European                     Regulations,
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 29 July 1997
by John Mellett, represented by Anthony M. Collins and
Brendan O'Donovan, with an address for service in                    — infringes general rules of law relating to the
Luxembourg at the applicant's home, 127 route de                           application of the Treaty establishing the European
Diekirch, Walferdange .                                                    Community, namely the- principles of equal treatment
                                                                           and of the protection of legitimate expectations, and
                                                                           the prohibition on the retroactive withdrawal of a
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                legal measure that confers individual rights, and
— annul the decision of the President of the Court of
    Justice of the European Communities of 17 October                — was adopted without taking proper account of his
    1996 refusing to open a competition to appoint a                       rights and legitimate interests.
    driver as a permanent official, and/or
— annul the decision of the President of the Court of
                                                                     By memorandum of 4 December 1996 the President
                                                                     refused the applicant's request to be appointed as an
    Justice of the European Communities of 4 December                established official on the ground that the 1976 decision
    1996 refusing to appoint him as a permanent official,
    and
                                                                     had not been applicable since 1994. The applicant states:
— award him the costs of these proceedings.                          — that the failure to apply the 1976 decision to him was
                                                                           made in error, and
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     — that the decision infringes general rules of law relating
The applicant, the personal driver of one of the Members                   to the application of the Treaty establishing the
of the Court of Justice, challenges the refusal to open a                  European Community, namely the principles of equal
competition to appoint a driver as a permanent official                    treatment and of the protection of legitimate
and the refusal to appoint him as a permanent official.                    expectations, and the prohibition on the retroactive