CELEX: C1998/094/86
Language: en
Date: 1998-03-28 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 26 January 1998 by Antonio Pernice against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-24/98)

28.3.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 94/37
18.7.1992, p. 1), it was entitled to receive a start-up grant        achieved so demands and where the legitimate
from the competent national authorities on submitting to             expectations of those concerned are duly respected. It
them a programme to improve the competitiveness of                   considers that the relevant criteria had in fact been
raspberry production for processing. Pursuant to                     fulfilled and that therefore the retroactive legislation could
Article 2(3), the said grant is fixed at ECU 50 per tonne of         have been adopted. In the applicant's view, the
raspberries as marketed for processing by the producers'             Commission's reliance on the principle of non-retroactivity
organisations, normally during the first marketing year              in order to refuse to accede to the request in question was
following special recognition. As the applicant was                  wholly wrong and unlawful in all circumstances.
recognised in April 1993, the relevant marketing year for
the purpose of determining the amount of the grant was
from 1 June 1993 to 31 May 1994.
Pursuant to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2252/92,
laying down special rules for the raspberry market (OJ               Action brought on 26 January 1998 by Antonio Pernice
L 219, 4.8.1992, p. 19), 70 % of the start-up grant was                against the Commission of the European Communities
paid by the Intervention Board, the competent national                                      (Case T-24/98)
authority, on 2 July 1993. Because it was based on a
                                                                                              (98/C 94/86)
marketing period which had only just started, the
applicant's grant was provisionally calculated on the basis
of the quantity marketed in the marketing year 1 June                               (Language of the case: French)
1993 to 31 May 1994.
                                                                     An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                     Communities was brought before the Court of First
The weather conditions were very unusual during the                  Instance of the European Communities on 26 January
marketing year 1993/94, so that instead of marketing                 1998 by Antonio Pernice, residing at Brussels, represented
approximately 7 000 tonnes of raspberries, it only                   by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Ariane Tornel and FrancËoise
marketed just over 4 000 tonnes. However, Article 6 of               Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service
Regulation (EEC) No 2252/92 specifically allowed                     in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de
marketing organisations, which had been adversely                    Cessange.
affected by bad weather, to use the second marketing year
following recognition as the basis for the calculation of
the grant. Unfortunately, the relevant year (1994/95) was            The applicant claims that the Court should:
even less clement and the applicant's sales tonnage
dropped to just over 3 500 tonnes. The Intervention Board            Ð annul the decision of 12 November 1997 to continue
then sought the repayment of GBP 83 745 from the                          to suspend the applicant of his duties and to prohibit
applicant.                                                                him from attending as chairman, contributor or mere
                                                                          participant in conferences, colloquia, seminars and
                                                                          other events or similar training programmes,
On 25 October 1995 the Scottish Office, Agriculture,
Environment and Fisheries Department, taking an interest
in the matter, wrote to the Commission. In that letter, it           Ð order the defendant to pay to the applicant ECU 1 as
set out the background to the problem and requested the                   symbolic damages for non-material and professional
                                                                          damage suffered as a result of successive wrongful
Commission to amend Regulation (EEC) No 1991/92
slightly so as to take into account the exceptionally                     conduct,
adverse weather conditions in Scotland during the relevant
period and thereby not to force the national authorities to          Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.
order the repayment of the start-up grant on the restricted
wording presently in force.                                          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
By letter of 16 October 1997 (the contested decision), the           The applicant, a member of the temporary staff, contests
Commission answered that it could not accede to that                 the suspension measure imposed on him by the appointing
request. This decision was based on two points: first, the           authority, pending a definitive disciplinary measure, on the
decision sought on behalf of the applicant would have the            ground of complaints based on failure to observe the third
effect of cancelling a national recovery order and secondly          paragraph of Article 12 and the first paragraph of
such a decision would have to be applied retroactively.              Article 17 of the Staff Regulations. The applicant points
                                                                     out in this regard that the suspension measure was
                                                                     adopted despite the Disciplinary Board's recommendation
As to the first point, the applicant states that there is no         that he be only reprimanded.
reason, legal or otherwise, why the relevant national
authority should not cancel a recovery order where such
                                                                     In support of his claim, the applicant puts forward the
action is warranted.
                                                                     following:
As to the second point, it maintains that Community law              Ð infringement of Article 88 of the Staff Regulations,
permits retroactive legislation where the purpose to be                   unlawfulness of the suspension decision, abuse of
 ---pagebreak--- C 94/38              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     28.3.98
    procedure in the present case as well as infringement           Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    of the reasonable period' rule and the principle of
    sound administration. A suspension decision may be              The applicant, a former official of the European
    validly justified only in so far as disciplinary                Parliament, seeks the annulment of a decision which, in
    proceedings are brought against the official or servant         his own view, impliedly suggests that he was responsible
    who has been suspended and pending a disciplinary               for certain financial losses.
    measure. However, in this case, the Disciplinary Board
    did not find, in its recommendation, that there had
    been serious misconduct. Moreover, an abnormally                In support of his claim he alleges, first of all, that the
    lengthy period elapsed between, on the one hand, the            disciplinary measure of 18 January 1988, on whose
    opening of the disciplinary procedure and referral to           lawfulness the Community judicature was called upon to
    the Disciplinary Board and, on the other, the opinion           rule, was based on, among other grounds, the loss of
    of the Disciplinary Board and the disciplinary decision,        supporting documents, not on the loss of cash, a
    which, five and a half months later, has still not been         disciplinary complaint which was expressly ruled out by
    adopted,                                                        the Disciplinary Board.
                                                                    The applicant considers, moreover, that the contested
Ð infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations, of           decision was taken in breach of the Financial Regulation
    the right to a fair hearing and of the principle of legal       of 21 December 1977 applicable to the general budget of
    certainty. The applicant states in this regard, first, that     the European Communities. That decision is also based
    no reasons were given for the contested suspension              both on the (mis)handling of accounting concepts and on
    decision which contradicts the Disciplinary Board's             documents which are either forged or anonymous.
    finding and, secondly, that all the documents on which
    the adoption of that decision was based were not
    disclosed to him in sufficient time to allow him to             Finally, in the context of his claim for compensation, he
    make comments.                                                  also relies on the violation of a number of fundamental
                                                                    principles of law, in particular of the rights of the defence.
                                                                    In particular, the applicant criticises the defendant for
                                                                    prohibiting him from gaining access to his own file and
                                                                    for using forged or unsigned documents in the procedure
                                                                    which led to the contested decision.
Action brought on 21 January 1998 by Henri de Compte
                against European Parliament
                       (Case T-25/98)
                         (98/C 94/87)
                                                                    Action brought on 28 January 1998 by Albert Nardone
                                                                      against the Commission of the European Communities
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                            (Case T-27/98)
                                                                                             (98/C 94/88)
An action against European Parliament was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 21 January 1998 by Henri de Compte,                                 (Language of the case: French)
residing at Longeville-Les-Metz, represented by Henri
Ferretti, of the Thionville Bar, with an address for service        An action against the Commission of the European
in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Guy Harles, 8Ð10 rue               Communities was brought before the Court of First
Mathias Hardt.                                                      Instance of the European Communities on 28 January
                                                                    1998 by Albert Nardone, residing at PieÂtrain (Belgium),
                                                                    represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                    Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 rue de Ces-
Ð annul Decision No A4-0125/97 of 10 April 1997                     sange.
    Decision giving discharge in respect of the
    implementation of the budget for the financial year             The applicant claims that the Court should:
    1995 Ð Section I Ð European Parliament/
    Ombudsman Annex' (OJ C 132/148, 28.4.1997,
    p. 148),                                                        Ð annul the decision taken by the appointing authority
                                                                        on 29 May 1997 following the request that an
                                                                        occupational disease be recognised in accordance with
Ð find the European Parliament liable for the harm                      Article 17 of the Rules on sickness insurance for
    suffered by the applicant and, accordingly, order the               officials of the European Communities and, in so far
    European Parliament to pay to him such an amount as                 as necessary, annul the implied decision rejecting the
    the Court may consider equitable,                                   complaint lodged by the applicant against that
                                                                        decision of 29 May,
Ð order the European Parliament to pay the costs,
    including those relating to the pre-litigation procedure.       Ð order the Commission to pay the costs.