CELEX: C2000/079/77
Language: en
Date: 2000-03-18 00:00:00
Title: Case T-352/99: Action brought on 9 December 1999 by M against Commission of the European Communities

C 79/36               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      18.3.2000
Action brought on 8 December 1999 by Bogoljub Karic,                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
Dragomir Karic, Milenka Karic, Sreten Karic and Zoran
     Karic against the Council of the European Union                     — annul the Commission’s decision of 9 February 1999
                                                                             considering the applicant’s absences from 8 to 17 Decemb-
                        (Case T-350/99)                                      er 1998 and of 25 January 1999 to have been unauthorised
                                                                             and deducting them from annual leave entitlement;
                         (2000/C 79/76)                                  — order the defendant to pay the costs.
                  (Language of the case: English)                        Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Council of the European Union was                  The applicant contests the legality of the decision to consider
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European               her absences because of sickness to have been unauthorised
Communities on 8 December 1999 by Bogoljub Karic and                     and to deduct them from annual leave entitlement. The
four others, represented by Nicolas Rollason and Tim Eicke,              applicant takes the view that by not enabling her to challenge
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of             effectively the institution’s medical officer’s refusal to accept
Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen, 2 place Winston Churchill.                     the medical certificate produced to justify her absences because
                                                                         of sickness, the Commission infringed Article 59(1) and (3) of
The applicants claim that the Court should:                              the Staff Regulations, as well as her rights of defence and the
                                                                         obligation to state reasons. She maintains, furthermore, that
— declare void the Council Decision 1999/612/CFSP and/or                 the medical officer committed a manifest error of assessment
    the decision apparently adopted on 6 December 1999, not              by refusing to acknowledge the seriousness of her medical
    yet published in the Official Journal but press-released on          complaint.
    the Council’s website on 6 December 1999;
— order the Council to pay the applicants’ costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments raised by the applicants             Action brought on 10 December 1999 by NV Calberson
are similar to those put forward in Case T-349/99. Moreover,             Belgium against the Commission of the European Com-
the applicants submit that the contested decisions prevent                                            munities
them from exercising their right to family life as protected by
Article 8(1) ECHR and Article 6(2) EU.                                                            (Case T-353/99)
                                                                                                   (2000/C 79/78)
                                                                                            (Language of the case: Dutch)
Action brought on 9 December 1999 by M against Com-                      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
            mission of the European Communities                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 10 December 1999 by NV Calber-
                                                                         son Belgium, having its registered office in Bornem (Belgium),
                        (Case T-352/99)                                  represented by L. Gheysens, of the Law Firm Gheysens &
                                                                         Partners, Wevelgem (Belgium), with an address for service in
                         (2000/C 79/77)                                  Luxembourg at the Chambers of R. Reding, 2 Rue J.-P.
                                                                         Brasseur.
                   (Language of the case: French)                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                — annul Commission Decision C(1999) 2140 final of 19 July
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                   1999 (file Rec 8/98 — client: Lema) and Commission
European Communities on 9 December 1999 by M, represent-                     Decision C(1999) 2143 final of 19 July 1999 (file Rec
ed by Jean-Noël Louis, Greta-Françoise Parmentier and                        9/98 — client: Consumer Electronic Service);
Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Société de Gestion               — declare that [the import duties in issue] should not be the
Fiduciaire, 2-4 rue Beck.                                                    subject of post-clearance recovery from the applicant;