CELEX: C2003/213/82
Language: en
Date: 2003-09-06 00:00:00
Title: Removal from the register of Case T-280/93

C 213/42                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          6.9.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants in Case T-391/02 ( 1) brought an action for                 The applicant has worked for the defendant since 1 July 1999.
annulment of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European                  On 1 July 2003 his current contract expires. However, the
Parliament and of the Council ( 2) and claimed that the Court              applicant’s request for a renewal of her contract was rejected
should annul the Regulation in so far as derogations to the                by the defendant. The applicant is challenging that decision.
prohibition on the use of catering waste in feed under
Article 22 are permitted for no more than four years from
1 November 2002. The contested decision adopts transitional                In support of his application the applicant first alleges an
measures in accordance with Article 32(2) of the Regulation.               infringement of the duty to provide a statement of reasons.
The applicants claim that the time-limit on the transitional               The applicant goes on to assert that the defendant exceeded its
measures is unlawful. It is not necessary for the purpose of               policy-making powers. The defendant drew up basic principles,
achieving the intended objective. For the rest, the applicants             policy rules and a stage plan to ensure that contracts are
refer to the pleas and arguments put forward in Case T-391/                extended in a clear and transparent manner. According to the
02.                                                                        applicant the defendant exceeded its margin of discretion in
                                                                           the application of those rules.
( 1) OJ 1992 C 44, p. 42.
( 2) Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and           Finally, the applicant submits that there was an infringement
     of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules             of the duty of care, as well as an infringement of the principle
     concerning animal by-products not intended for human consump-         of equal treatment.
     tion (OJ 2002 L 273, p. 1).
                                                                           Lastly, the applicant asserts that the fact that he is a member
                                                                           of Europol’s supervisory body and a union member are the
                                                                           reasons why his contract is not being extended. The applicant
                                                                           is of the view that employees who are members of a
                                                                           co-determination body must enjoy extra protection against
                                                                           dismissal and that in such cases it is for the employer to show
                                                                           that there is no connection between the dismissal and the
Action brought on 11 July 2003 by Andreas Mausolf v                        activities of the employee.
                               Europol
                          (Case T-258/03)
                          (2003/C 213/81)
                                                                                   Removal from the register of Case T-280/93 (1)
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                                   (2003/C 213/82)
An action against Europol was brought before the Court of                                     (Language of the Case: English)
First Instance of the European Communities on 11 July 2003
by Andreas Mausolf, residing in Leiden (Netherlands) and
represented by M.F. Baltussen and P. Casparis.
                                                                           By order of 12 June 2003 the President of the First Chamber
                                                                           of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                ordered the removal from the register of Case T-280/93: Brian
                                                                           Stephen Garrett v Council of the European Union and
                                                                           Commission of the European Communities.
(1) annul the (partial) rejection by Europol on 14 April 2003
        of the applicant’s complaint against the decision of
        30 September 2002, together with the latter decision;
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 302 of 19.11.1992.
(2) order Europol to pay the applicant compensation includ-
        ing in any event the costs of the proceedings.