CELEX: C2000/079/82
Language: en
Date: 2000-03-18 00:00:00
Title: Case T-2/00: Action brought on 10 January 2000 by "N" against the Commission of the European Communities

18.3.2000              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 79/39
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            Action brought on 10 January 2000 by ‘N’ against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
— hold that the Commission and/or the European Investment                                         (Case T-2/00)
    Bank have been guilty of manifest negligence in failing for
    15 years or more to require the local authorities and the
    bank SOCREDO to apply and make known association                                             (2000/C 79/82)
    decisions of the Council and comply with Community law
    applicable in French Polynesia, and that that failure has
    caused the applicant’s present legal difficulties;                                     (Language of the case: French)
— in addition, order the Commission to pay the applicant the           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
    sum of FRF 25 000 in respect of irrecoverable costs which          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
    he has had to incur to protect his interests.                      European Communities on 10 January 2000 by ‘N’, domiciled
                                                                       in Brussels, represented by Marc-Albert Lucas and Jean-Louis
                                                                       Dupont, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                       Luxembourg at the Chambers of Luc Tecqmenne, 3 Rue des
                                                                       Capucins.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant seeks a declaration that the Commission and the          — annul the Commission’s decision of 15 March 1999
European Investment Bank (EIB) are liable to compensate him                refusing to accept liability under Article 73 of the Staff
for the damage, imminent and foreseeable, which, he claims,                Regulations and Article 2 of the Rules on coverage of the
he is going to sustain owing to the failure of those institutions          risk of work-related accidents and illness in respect of the
to require the local authorities of French Polynesia and the               accident which he declared on 6 February 1996;
development bank SOCREDO to comply with Community
law and to apply and make known Council Decisions                      — so far as necessary, annul the implied decisions refusing
86/283/EEC of 30 June 1986 and 91/482/EEC of 25 July                       the applicant’s administrative claims of 10 and 15 June
1991 on the association of the overseas countries and                      1999 against that decision;
territories with the European Economic Community.
                                                                       — order the defendant to reimburse him with the medical
                                                                           fees he paid in implementation of the decision of 15 March
The applicant claims that, had the Commission and the EIB:                 1999;
                                                                       — order the defendant to pay him an amount of damages to
— properly carried out their monitoring and supervision                    be decided by the Court in compensation for non-material
    duties,                                                                damage suffered by him;
                                                                       — and order the defendant to pay the costs.
— exercised their power to bring proceedings before the
    Court of Justice, where appropriate,
                                                                       Pleas in law and main arguments
— applied the provisions of the association decisions which
    make expressly evident the legal situation of ‘partnership’,       The applicant challenges the Commission’s refusal to treat his
                                                                       infection with the human immunodeficiency (HIV) virus as an
                                                                       accident for the purposes of Article 73 of the Staff Regulations
                                                                       and Article 2 of the Rules on coverage of the risk of
— informed investors of the aim and purpose of those                   work-related accidents and illness. He relies on a breach of
    decisions, and informed the local people of their legal            Article 2 of those Rules against that decision, and argues as
    position vis-à-vis the Community and of their rights,              follows:
                                                                       (a) Error in law as to the nature of the injurious event and of
since 1984, the legal problems he has encountered because of
                                                                           the causal link between that event and the fact giving rise
the inveterate failure of the local authorities to observe the
                                                                           to it. It is clear that the requirements of Article 2 of the
primacy of Community law would never have arisen.
                                                                           Rules are met where there is evidence not of the specific
                                                                           fact which caused the injurious event but rather of
                                                                           the injurious event itself, including the fact that it was
                                                                           extraneous to the victim’s body and sudden, violent or
                                                                           abnormal. In this case, the opinion of the medical com-
                                                                           mittee, on which the contested decision is based, itself
 ---pagebreak--- C 79/40               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        18.3.2000
    identifies the sudden, violent or abnormal event extraneous          31 January 1997 removing him from his post and ordered the
    to the applicant’s body, namely infection with the HIV               EIB to pay arrears of his remuneration which he should have
    virus in 1995. The committee’s views on the evidence of              received since his dismissal. The EIB appealed that judgment
    the precise cause of the infection are beyond its com-               of the Court of First Instance before the Court of Justice but it
    petence since that is a legal issue.                                 did not consider it relevant to make an application for interim
                                                                         measures, as it could have done, seeking a stay of execution of
(b) Error of law as to the criteria applied to the accident. The         the judgment in question.
    medical committee and the administration took the view
    that the concept of an accident within the meaning of
    Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and Article 2 of the             The EIB did not however uphold any request for a stay of
    Rules required that the event should not be the result of a          execution of the judgment submitted to it by the applicant; it
    freely assumed risk or be unforeseeable, in other words,             moreover made it very clear in its appeal that it did not
    that there should not be any fault or intention associated           consider itself at all required to enforce the judgment of the
    therewith, even though the wording of Article 2 of the               Court of First Instance. The EIB therefore arrogated to itself a
    Rules defining the term accident contains no such con-               power which the law does not provide for, namely, that of
    ditions; they are, rather, included in Articles 4 and 7 on           deciding the appropriateness of complying with a judgment of
    the circumstances in which cover is excluded.                        the court without however taking account of other interests,
                                                                         in particular the harm suffered by the applicant.
(c) Manifest error of appraisal, in that all the conditions for an
    accident provided for in Article 2 of the Rules were met.
                                                                         The applicant argues that failure to comply with the judgment
                                                                         of the Court of First Instance constitutes, on the part of the
                                                                         EIB, a serious failure to fulfil its oblations and misuse of powers
                                                                         and that that conduct by the EIB is causing him extremely
                                                                         serious and irreversible non-material damage inasmuch as it is
                                                                         such as to cast doubts on his professional ability and standing.
Action brought on 18 January 2000 by Michel Hautem
            against the European Investment Bank
                         (Case T-11/00)
                         (2000/C 79/83)
                                                                         Action brought on 20 January 2000 by Serena Angioli
                                                                         and Others v Commission of the European Communities
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                                   (Case T-18/00)
An action against the European Investment Bank was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                                     (2000/C 79/84)
on 18 January 2000 by Michel Hautem, residing in Schouweil-
er (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg) represented by Michel Karp
and Joëlle Choucroun, of the Luxembourg Bar, 84 Grand-Rue.
                                                                                             (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
— order the Bank to pay him by way of reparation for                     ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
    non-material damage caused by its failure to comply                  European Communities on 20 January 2000 by Serena Angi-
    with the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                  oli, Claudia Delloye-Lemoine, Ann Perks, Geneviève Courtay
    28 September 1999 or, in the alternative, its refusal to             and Claude Gaspart, resident in Brussels, represented by Eric
    comply with it, the sum of EUR 20 000 or any other                   Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
    greater amount which this Court might deem equitable;                Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort
                                                                         Rheinsheim.
— order the Bank to pay the costs.
                                                                         The applicants claim that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         — annul the decisions of Roger Fry, head of unit at DG IX,
                                                                              addressed to Ms Courtay 23 March, Ms Delloye on 18 May
The applicant points out that, in its judgment of 28 September                and the other applicants on 31 May 1999 terminating
1999 in Case T-140/97, the Court of First Instance annulled                   their contracts on 30 June 1999 and annulling the renewal
the decision of the European Investment Bank (EIB) of                         date of each applicant’s contract, namely 30 June 1999;