CELEX: C2003/158/45
Language: en
Date: 2003-07-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-135/03: Action brought on 18 April 2003 by Common Market Fertilizers (CMF) against the Commission of the European Communities

5.7.2003                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        C 158/25
Action brought on 18 April 2003 by Common Market                            Action brought on 23 April 2003 by Ornella Mancini
Fertilizers (CMF) against the Commission of the European                      against the Commission of the European Communities
                             Communities
                                                                                                    (Case T-137/03)
                           (Case T-135/03)
                                                                                                    (2003/C 158/46)
                           (2003/C 158/45)
                                                                                               (Language of the case: French)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                            An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                            ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                            European Communities on 23 April 2003 by Ornella Mancini,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                   residing in Brussels, represented by Eric Boigelot, avocat.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 18 April 2003 by Common Market
Fertilizers, a company established in Brussels, represented by
Alastair Sutton and Nathalie Flandin, lawyers.                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                            —     set aside the decision of the appointing authority of
                                                                                  28 June 2002 not to appoint the applicant to the post of
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                       medical consultant to the ‘Brussels Medical Service’ Unit
                                                                                  of DG Admin B8;
—      annul Commission Decision REM 03/02;
                                                                            —     set aside the express decision of 23 January 2003
                                                                                  dismissing the complaint lodged by the applicant;
—      order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                            —     set aside the appointment of another candidate to the
                                                                                  post of medical consultant, which involved inter alia
                                                                                  rejection of the applicant’s candidature for the vacant
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                   post;
                                                                            —     order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of
                                                                                  EUR 15 000 assessed ex æquo et bono as compensation
The applicant is a wholesaler of chemical products and in                         for non-material damage and the adverse effect on the
particular nitrogen solutions. It applied to the French customs                   applicant’s career;
authorities, under Article 239 of Regulation (EC) No 2913/
92 (1), for remission of customs duties in accordance with
Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 3319/94 (2). That appli-                 —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
cation was forwarded by the French authorities to the defend-
ant who, by its contested decision, refused remission.
                                                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
In support of its action, the applicant relies on pleas in law
and arguments which are similar to those relied on by the
same applicant in Case T-134/03.                                            The applicant, who is a medical doctor, is an official working
                                                                            in the Commission’s medical service. In response to a notice
                                                                            of vacancy, she submitted her application for a post of medical
                                                                            consultant. The appointing authority did not select her and
( 1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992                 another candidate was appointed to that post.
     establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302,
     19.10.1992, p. 1).
( 2) Council Regulation (EC) No 3319/94 of 22 December 1994
     imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of urea             The applicant takes the view that the appointing authority has
     ammonium nitrate solution originating in Bulgaria and Poland,          breached Articles 14, 29(1)(a) and 45(1) of the Staff Regu-
     exported by companies not exempted from the duty, and col-             lations and has infringed the principles of legality, equal
     lecting definitively the provisional duty imposed (OJ L 350,           treatment of applicants, entitlement to pursue a career, equal
     31.12.1994, p. 20).                                                    opportunity, and equality as between men and women. In
                                                                            support of her claims, the applicant submits further that the
                                                                            appointing authority acted improperly during the appointment
                                                                            procedure and was guilty of a misuse of powers.