CELEX: C2000/372/33
Language: en
Date: 2000-12-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-333/00: Action brought on 3 November 2000 by Rougemarine SARL against Commission of the European Communities

C 372/16              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                   23.12.2000
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                        —     annul the decisions of the Authority Empowered to
The applicants are former temporary agents working for the                    Conclude Contracts (AECC) of 16 March 2000, 3 Februa-
Commission at the Joint Research Centre (JRC) at Ispra, Italy.                ry 2000, 17 March 2000, 17 January 2000 and 16 March
                                                                              2000 not to accept the applicants’ candidature for the
                                                                              posts advertised in vacancy notices COM/R/5526/00 of
By the contested decisions, the Commission informed the                       24 February 2000, COM/R/5889/99 of 21 December
applicants that their applications for the two vacant posts had               1999, COM/R/5520/00 of 24 February 2000,
not been taken into consideration.                                            COM/R/5863/99 of 26 November 1999 and
                                                                              COM/R/5521/00 of 24 February 2000, or, in the alterna-
                                                                              tive, to annul those vacancy notices and, in so far as
The applicants criticise the Commission for having given                      necessary, annul the decision of the AECC of 25 July
priority to applications from officials, which were examined                  2000 rejecting the applicants’ complaints;
and compared on their own, without those of temporary
agents, including the candidatures of the applicants, being             —      order the defendant to pay one euro by way of damages
examined at the same time. By failing to consider the
                                                                              for the damage suffered as a result of that decision, such
comparative merits of all the candidatures, the Commission
                                                                              sum being set ex aequo et bono and provisionally;
infringed Articles 4, 7, 27, 29 and 45 of the Staff Regulations
and Article 12 of the Conditions of Employment of other
servants and breached the principle of non-discrimination.              —     order the defendant to pay the whole of the costs.
Moreover, the applicants claim that the contested decisions are
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
devoid of any formal statement of reasons. Furthermore, they
were not taken in the interest of the service and are not
compatible with the new policy of the Commission vis-à-vis              The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
research staff. Finally, the applicants take the view that the          relied on in Case T-330/00 Cocchi and Heinz v Commission.
contested decisions are acts of mismanagement and are
contrary to the duty of the administration to have regard for
the welfare of officials.
                                                                        Action brought on 3 November 2000 by Rougemarine
                                                                        SARL against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                (Case T-333/00)
Action brought on 26 October 2000 by Laurence Bories
and 4 others against Commission of the European Com-
                            munities                                                            (2000/C 372/33)
                         (Case T-331/00)                                                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                         (2000/C 372/32)
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 3 November 2000 by Rougemarine
                                                                        SARL, whose registered office is at Paris, represented by
                                                                        Thierry Levy, of the Paris Bar.
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        —     annul in its entirety the decision of the Commission of
European Communities on 26 October 2000 by Laurence
                                                                              the European Communities of 5 September 2000;
Bories and Philippe Chemin, Laura Copes, Emanuele Mondini
and Helen Preissler, residing in Italy, represented by Georges
Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar.                       —     annul Council Decision 95/563/EC of 10 July 1995;
 ---pagebreak--- 23.12.2000             EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 372/17
—     order the Commission to pay FRF 1 604 735 241                      Action brought on 7 November 2000 by Carmelo Morello
      (EUR 24 463 867) by way of damages for the harm                      against the Commission of the European Communities
      suffered by Rougemarine as a result of such discrimi-
      nation;
                                                                                                 (Case T-338/00)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                                     (2000/C 372/34)
                                                                                            (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
The applicant in the present case is an audiovisual production           European Communities on 7 November 2000 by Carmelo
undertaking belonging to the RCS in Paris whose managing                 Morello, residing in Brussels, represented by Jacques Sambon
director and majority shareholder is a Tunisian national.                and Pierre Paul Van Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
The action seeks the annulment of the decision of the
Commission of 5 September 2000 which refused the applicant               —     annul the Commission’s decision appointing another
the financial support which it had requested in the context of                 official to post COM/113/99 IV/F/2 ‘Motor vehicles
the MEDIA II programme, the objective of which is, among                       and other means of transport’, corresponding to a
others, to encourage the development and distribution of                       grade A5/A4 post of Head of Unit;
European audiovisual works pursuant to Council Decision
95/563/EC of 10 July 1995 on the implementation of a
programme encouraging the development and distribution of                —     annul the Commission’s decision rejecting the application
European audiovisual works (Media II — Development and                         of the applicant for that post;
distribution) (1996-2000). (1)
                                                                         —     award the sum of 120 000 euro, subject to increase or
                                                                               decrease during the course of the proceedings, by way of
In support of its claims, the applicant undertaking states, first,             compensation for the non-material damage suffered by
that the contested decision, which is based on the fourth                      the applicant as a result of the irregular or incomplete
paragraph of Article 3 of Council Decision 95/563/EC, cited                    information gathered by the defendant in relation to the
above, is unlawful, in that it discriminates between European                  applicant’s personal file and the state of uncertainty and
audiovisual production undertakings on the basis of the                        worry in which he has been placed with regard to his
nationality of its managing directors, which is contrary to                    future career;
Article 12 of the EC Treaty. In fact, according to the fourth
paragraph of Article 3, the businesses benefitting from the              —     award the sum of 25 000 euro, subject to increase or
programme must be in the possession and continue to be in                      decrease during the course of the proceedings, by way of
the possession, whether directly, or by majority participation,                compensation for the material damage suffered by the
of the Member States and/or of nationals from Member States.                   applicant as a result of his having been rejected as a
That provision is also contrary to the principle of equality, as               candidate for the post to be filled and of his having thus
laid down in the case-law of the Court of Justice. The applicant               lost an opportunity of promotion;
considers, in that respect, that the differentiation criterion used
is not objectively justified.
                                                                         —     order the Commission to pay all the costs.
Additionally, the applicant undertaking requests, on the basis
of Article 241 of the Treaty, that Council Decision 95/563/EC            Pleas in law and main arguments
be declared unlawful.
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
                                                                         Cases T-135/00 and T-136/00 Morello v Commission (1).
(1) OJ 1995 L 321, p. 25.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 211, 22.7.2000, pp. 23 and 24.