CELEX: C2001/227/55
Language: en
Date: 2001-08-11 00:00:00
Title: Case T-117/01: Action brought on 28 May 2001 by Marcos Roman Parra against the Commission of the European Communities

C 227/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    11.8.2001
European Communities on 23 May 2001 by Stefano Cocchi,                   The applicants claim that the Court should:
residing at Varano Borghi (Italy), and Evi Hainz, residing
at Besozzo (Italy), represented by Laure Levi and Georges                —     annul the decision of the Authority Empowered to
Vandersanden, avocats.                                                         Conclude Contracts (AECC) to cancel the recruitment
                                                                               procedures initiated by the publication of the following
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                    vacancy notices: COM/R/5638/00 and COM/R/5639/00
                                                                               (in the case of Francesca Bertolo), COM/R/5526/00 (in
—     annul the decisions of the Authority Empowered to                        the case of Laurence Bories), COM/R/5645/00 (in the
      Conclude Contracts (AECC), of unknown date, appointing                   case of Lionello Brovelli), COM/R/5889/99 (in the case of
      persons to fill the posts declared vacant by, respectively,              Philippe Chemin), COM/R/5520/00 (in the case of Laura
      vacancy notices COM/R/5530/00 of 24 February 2000                        Copes), COM/R/5646/00 (in the case of Maria Gabriella
      (in the case of Mr Cocchi) and COM/R/5500/00 of                          D’Elia), COM/R/5863/99 (in the case of Emanuele Mondi-
      24 February 2000 (in the case of Ms Hainz) and, in so far                ni) and COM/R/5521/00 (in the case of Helen Preissler);
      as may be necessary, annul the implicit decision rejecting
      the applicants’ complaints;                                        —     in the case of Philippe Chemin and Emanuele Mondini,
                                                                               annul, respectively, vacancy notices COM/R/5734/00
—     order the defendant to pay one euro by way of damages                    (Philippe Chemin) and COM/R/5735/00 (Emanuele Mon-
      for the prejudice suffered as a result of that decision, that            dini), published on 23 June 2000, and annul the decisions
      sum being fixed on an equitable and provisional basis;                   taken in the context of those new recruitment procedures;
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs.                          —     order the defendant to pay one euro by way of damages
                                                                               for the prejudice suffered as a result of the contested
                                                                               decisions, that sum being fixed on an equitable and
                                                                               provisional basis;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
The pleas in law and main arguments advanced in this
application are analogous to those put forward in Case
T-330/00 (1).                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         The present action reproduces the facts and legal arguments
(1) OJ 2000 C 372, p. 15.
                                                                         put forward in support of the application of certain applicants
                                                                         in Case T-331/00 Bories and Others v Commission (1).
                                                                         (1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.2000, p. 16.
Action brought on 29 May 2001 by Francesca Bertolo
and Others against the Commission of the European
                          Communities
                         (Case T-115/01)                                 Action brought on 28 May 2001 by Marcos Roman Parra
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                        (2001/C 227/54)
                                                                                                  (Case T-117/01)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                                  (2001/C 227/55)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                  (Language of the case: French)
European Communities on 29 May 2001 by Francesca Bertolo,
residing at Varese (Italy), Laurence Bories, residing at Vallon
Pont d’Arc (France), Lionello Brovelli, residing at Angera (Italy),      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Philippe Chemin, residing at Gif sur Yvette (France), Laura              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
Copes, residing at Ispra (Italy), Maria Gabriella d’Elia, residing       European Communities on 28 May 2001 by Marcos Roman
at Taino (Italy), Emanuele Mondini, residing at Gavirate                 Parra, residing at Zaventem (Belgium), represented by Jean-
(Italy) and Helen Preissler, residing at Siegsdorf (Germany),            Noël Louis and Véronique Peere, avocats, with an address for
represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, avocats.             service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 11.8.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 227/29
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    article. In the applicant’s view, the present case does not
                                                                               involve any selective advantage of the type which is
—     annul the Commission’s decision not to promote him to                    inherent in all aid, at least as regards the amounts paid to
      grade A6 in the course of the 2000 promotion procedure;                  FGV, the consideration for which was the provision of a
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                                   maritime transport service.
                                                                         —     Misinterpretation of the concept of aid within the mean-
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                ing of the abovementioned article, inasmuch as the
                                                                               Commission states that the amounts paid in return for
In support of his action, the applicant pleads a failure to                    travel vouchers did not correspond to any actual need of
provide a statement of reasons, as required by Article 25 of                   the applicant, since they had not yet been used as at the
the Staff Regulations, and also infringement of Article 45 of                  date when the contested decision was adopted. The
the Staff Regulations and breach of the principle of equal                     applicant asserts in that regard that the travel vouchers
treatment and the principle that officials should have reason-                 do not have to be used within any specific period
able career prospects. The applicant bases his claim, inter alia,              and that the purchase of them constituted a normal
on the absence of a staff report.                                              commercial transaction.
                                                                         —     Breach of the right to property enshrined in Article 295
                                                                               EC, inasmuch as the contested decision obliges the
                                                                               contractor providing the transport service to refund all
                                                                               the amounts received, on the basis of the non-utilisation
                                                                               of the vouchers purchased. The applicant states that the
Action brought on 31 May 2001 by Diputación Foral                             imposition of that obligation entails a de facto restriction
de Bizkaia against the Commission of the European                              on the capacity to conclude contracts which goes beyond
                          Communities                                          what is permitted by the Community rules governing
                                                                               State aid.
                        (Case T-118/01)
                                                                         —     Absence or insufficiency of a statement of reasons for the
                        (2001/C 227/56)                                        decision, inasmuch as it does not show that the 1995
                                                                               Agreement has any real effect on competition and intra-
                                                                               Community trade.
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)
                                                                         —     Misinterpretation of Article 87(2)(a) EC, inasmuch as the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      Commission, having acknowledged that the aid benefits
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                     individual consumers with special needs and may there-
European Communities on 31 May 2001 by Diputación Foral                       fore be regarded as aid having a social character, goes on
de Bizkaia, established in Bilbao (Spain), represented by                      to state, without producing any evidence in support, that
Marta Morales Isasi and Ignacio Saenz-Cortabarria Fernández,                  the condition laid down by the Treaty (namely, the
abogados.                                                                      absence of discrimination related to the origin of the
                                                                               products concerned) is not fulfilled.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the Commission’s decision of 29 November 2000
      on the aid scheme implemented by Spain in favour of the            In the alternative, in the event that the Court of First Instance
      shipping company Ferries Golfo de Vizcaya (OJ L 89 of              considers that — as the contested decision maintains — the
      29 March 2001, p. 28);                                             1995 Agreement in itself constitutes State aid in favour of
—     annul Article 2 of that decision in so far as it orders the        FGV within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, the applicant
      recovery of ESP 985 500 000 together with interest                 asserts that it is lawful aid (existing aid), since the Kingdom of
      thereon;                                                           Spain has not infringed the obligation laid down in the final
                                                                         sentence of Article 93(3) of the Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC).
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                             Given that what is involved is lawful aid, Article 14(1) of
                                                                         Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down
                                                                         detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          does not permit its recovery, and Article 2 of the decision is
                                                                         therefore null and void.
The applicant bases its action on the following pleas:
—     Infringement of Article 87(1) EC, on account of the
      incorrect assessment made by the Commission in con-
      sidering, from the outset, that all the amounts granted to
      Ferries Golfo de Vizcaya (FGV) under the 1995 Agree-
      ment constitute State aid within the meaning of that