CELEX: C2000/302/79
Language: en
Date: 2000-10-21 00:00:00
Title: Case T-237/00: Action brought on 8 September 2000 by Patrick Reynolds against the European Parliament

C 302/34               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   21.10.2000
In particular, the applicant claims that:                                 —     make any other order as the Court may see fit in order to
                                                                                ensure compliance with the judgment, as well as an order
—    the assessment of the aid granted by the Italian authorities               requiring the Commission to pay the costs incurred by
     to municipal undertakings should not have been carried                     the applicant.
     out without assessing the role played by other undertak-
     ings active in the self-same sector — port services — the
     nature and purpose of which is absolutely identical with             Pleas in law and main arguments
     those which the Commission accepts in respect of the
     municipal undertakings mentioned by the Commune di
     Venezia and, in particular, Panfido SpA, entrusted with              The pleas in law and main arguments are those relied upon in
     running ships’ towage services in the port of Venice.                Case T-228/00 Gruppo Ormeggiatori del Porto di Venezia v
                                                                          Commission (1).
—    the applicant is entrusted by the public authorities with
     the running of a service in the general public interest as a
     monopoly and without any impact on intra-Community                   (1) Not yet published.
     trade. Accordingly, the measures granted to it are evi-
     dently required and necessary for the accomplishment of
     the task with which it has been entrusted.
(1) Not yet published.
(2) OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1.
                                                                          Action brought on 8 September 2000 by Patrick Reynolds
                                                                                         against the European Parliament
                                                                                                   (Case T-237/00)
                                                                                                   (2000/C 302/79)
Action brought on 30 August 2000 by Gruppo Ormeggia-
tori del Porto di Chioggia Piccola s.c.r.l. against Com-
            mission of the European Communities
                                                                                             (Language of the case: French)
                        (Case T-229/00)
                                                                          An action against the European Parliament was brought before
                                                                          the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
                        (2000/C 302/78)                                   8 September 2000 by Patrick Reynolds, residing in Brussels,
                                                                          represented by Pierre Legros, of the Brussels Bar, and Stéphane
                                                                          Rodrigues, of the Paris Bar.
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                          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 the decision of the Secretary-General of the Euro-
European Communities on 30 August 2000 by Gruppo                                pean Parliament dated 18 July 2000;
Ormeggiatori del Porto di Chioggia Piccola s.c.r.l., represented
by Sergio Maria Carbone and Alberto Taramasso, of the Genoa
Bar.                                                                      —     declare that the European Community has incurred non-
                                                                                contractual liability on account of the contested decision;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     order the Parliament to pay to the applicant the arrears
                                                                                of salary and pension due to him since 15 July 2000,
—    annul the Commission decision of 25 November 1999                          together with interest on all those arrears at the annual
     on aid to firms in Venice and Chioggia by way of                           rate of 10 %;
     relief from social security contributions under Laws
     Nos 30/1997 and 206/1995 in so far as it excludes from
     Article 4 undertakings, such as the applicant, which find            —     award the applicant damages on account of the non-
                                                                                material damage caused by the contested decision, in a
     themselves in circumstances identical to those of the
                                                                                sum amounting to 250 000 euro;
     undertakings mentioned in the aforementioned article,
     and order the Commission to adopt any appropriate
     measure to comply with the judgment of this Court;                   —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 21.10.2000            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 302/35
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
By the contested decision, the appointing authority terminated          —     annul the decisions taken by the appointing authority by
the secondment of the applicant to the political Group for a                  way of compliance with the judgment of the Court of
Europe of Democracies and Diversities and reinstated him in a                 First Instance of 14 April 1999 in Case T-50/98 pursuant
post in the Directorate-General for Information and Public                    to Article 176 of the EC Treaty (now Article 233 EC);
Relations.
                                                                        —     annul, in so far as may be necessary, the decision adopted
                                                                              by the Commission on 25 May 2000 in response to the
The applicant contests the legality of that decision, seeks its               applicant’s complaint No R/21/2000 of 18 January 2000,
annulment and claims compensation for the damage resulting                    by which it expressly rejected that complaint;
from it. He maintains that it infringes the rights of the defence
and the obligation to provide a statement of reasons. In                —     order the defendant to pay to the applicant compensation
addition, he pleads a breach of the principle of the protection               in the sum of BEF 3 000 000 or such other higher sum
of legitimate expectations and of the duty to have regard for                 as the Court may consider fair and reasonable;
the welfare and interests of officials. Lastly, he claims that the
contested decision is vitiated by a misuse of powers.                   —     order the defendant to pay all the costs.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        By decision of 28 July 1999, the Commission informed the
                                                                        applicant that the Promotion Committee had carried out a
Action brought on 12 September 2000 by Lars Bo Ras-                     comparison of his merits with those of all the officials
mussen against the Commission of the European Com-                      proposed and those of all the officials regarded as most
                            munities                                    deserving of promotion to grade A 4 in 1997, and that,
                                                                        following that comparative examination, it had decided not to
                        (Case T-240/00)                                 include the applicant’s name in the list of officials most
                                                                        deserving of promotion in 1997. That decision was adopted
                        (2000/C 302/80)                                 in consequence of the judgment of the Court of First Instance
                                                                        of 14 April 1999 in Case T-50/98, by which that Court
                                                                        annulled the Commission’s decision not to promote the
                  (Language of the case: French)                        applicant in 1997.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-               By the present action, the applicant maintains that the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              Commission has not correctly complied with the aforesaid
European Communities on 12 September 2000 by Lars Bo                    judgment. He claims that the Commission has failed to fulfil
Rasmussen, residing at Dalheim (Grand Duchy of Luxem-                   its obligation to provide a statement of reasons and that it has
bourg), represented by Joëlle Choucroun, of the Luxembourg              infringed Article 45 of the Staff Regulations of officials and
Bar.                                                                    the principle of equal treatment.