CELEX: C1999/071/61
Language: en
Date: 1999-03-13 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 29 December 1998 by Neptune Orient Lines Limited against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-212/98)

C 71/32              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   13.3.1999
In support of his claims, the applicant states that there has      In respect of that decision, the applicant pleads:
been misuse of power inasmuch as the Staff Regulations
have been infringed.
                                                                   Ð infringement of Article 88 of the Staff Regulations, in
                                                                       so far as the conditions for the application of that
(1) OJ C 94, 28.3.1998, p. 30.
                                                                       article are not satisfied in the present case;
                                                                   Ð breach of the duty to state reasons;
                                                                   Ð breach of the principle of proportionality and the duty
Action brought on 24 December 1998 by Claude Willeme                   to have regard for the welfare of officials;
     against Commission of the European Communities
                       (Case T-211/98)
                                                                   Ð breach of the interest of the service and the principle
                        (1999/C 71/60)                                 of     good    management        practice    and    sound
                                                                       administration;
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   Ð breach of the principle of non-discrimination, in so far
An action against the Commission of the European                       as facts of the type alleged have never resulted in a
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      decision to suspend an official, which is limited to
Instance of the European Communities on 24 December                    much more serious facts;
1998 by Claude Willeme, residing in Brussels, represented
by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the              Ð breach of the rights of the defence.
offices of the Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de
Cessange.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   Action brought on 29 December 1998 by Neptune Orient
Ð annul the appointing authority's decision of
                                                                   Lines Limited against the Commission of the European
    16 December 1998 to suspend the applicant from his
                                                                                            Communities
    duties and to withhold a sum equal to one half of his
    basic salary from his remuneration with immediate                                     (Case T-212/98)
    effect;
                                                                                           (1999/C 71/61)
Ð order the European Commission to pay damages by
    way of compensation for the material and the                                  (Language of the case: English)
    non-material loss suffered as a result of the unlawful
    nature of the decision of 16 December 1998; those              An action against the Commission of the European
    damages are provisionally assessed at EUR 31 001;              Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities on 29 December
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                            1998 by Neptune Orient Lines Limited, represented by
                                                                   John Pheasant, Nicholas Bromfield and Matthew Levitt of
                                                                   Lovell White Durrant, Solicitors, and Alexandre R. M.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                Nourry, Solicitor, and Marleen J. J. Van Kerckhove of
                                                                   Clifford Chance with an address for service in
The contested decision was adopted in the context of               Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11, rue
disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant           Goethe.
when, following an investigation carried out by the Unit
on Coordination of Fraud Prevention (UCLAF), the                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
administration of the defendant institution learned that his
wife had been awarded an employment contract with a
contractor of the Commission and had been paid for six             (a) annul the decision of 16 September 1998 relating to a
months notwithstanding the fact that she only worked for               proceeding pursuant to Articles 85 and 86 of the EC
two weeks. The appointing authority considered that it                 Treaty (Case No IV/35.134-Trans-Atlantic Conference
was apparent from the information gathered by the                      Agreement);
UCLAF that the applicant's wife had been awarded that
contract because of the post held by the applicant at the
Security Office in Brussels. It therefore decided to initiate      (b) in any event, annul the fine imposed on it or reduce
the disciplinary proceedings and to adopt the contested                such fine by the amount considered appropriate by the
decision.                                                              Court in all the circumstances;
 ---pagebreak--- 13.3.1999             EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 71/33
(c) order the Commission to pay the Applicant's costs;            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     and
                                                                  The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to
(d) order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the         those raised in Case T-191/98 (Atlantic Container Line
     Applicant in providing a bank guarantee or other             e.a./Commission).
     security in lieu of payment of the fine pending
     judgment by the Court.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                  Action brought on 30 December 1998 by Transportacion
The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to              Maritima Mexicana S.A. de C.V. and Tecomar S.A. de
those raised in Case T-191/98 (Atlantic Container Line            C.V. against the Commission of the European
e.a./Commission).                                                                         Communities
                                                                                        (Case T-214/98)
                                                                                         (1999/C 71/63)
                                                                                 (Language of the case: English)
Action brought on 29 December 1998 by Nippon Yusen
Kaisha against the Commission of the European                     An action against the Commission of the European
                         Communities                              Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                  Instance of the European Communities on 30 December
                       (Case T-213/98)
                                                                  1998 by Transportacion Maritima Mexicana S.A. de C.V.
                        (1999/C 71/62)                            and Tecomar S.A. de C.V., represented by Alfred Merckx,
                                                                  Sinclair Roche & Temperley, and John Pheasant, Nicholas
                                                                  Bromfield and Matthew Levitt, Lovell White Durrant,
               (Language of the case: English)                    Solicitors, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                  the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11, rue Goethe.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
Instance of the European Communities on 29 December
1998 by Nippon Yusen Kaisha, represented by Nicholas
                                                                  (a) annul the decision of 16 September 1998 relating to a
Forwood and Philip Ruttley QC of the English Bar and
                                                                       proceeding pursuant to Articles 85 and 86 of the EC
John Pheasant, Nicholas Bromfield and Matthew Levitt of
                                                                       Treaty (Case No IV/35.134-Trans-Atlantic Conference
Lovell White Durrant, Solicitors, with an address for
                                                                       Agreement);
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch &
Wolter, 11, rue Goethe.
                                                                  (b) in any event, annul the fines imposed on the
                                                                       Applicants or substantially reduce such fines by the
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            amounts considered appropriate by the Court in all
                                                                       the circumstances;
(a) annul the decision of 16 September 1998 relating to a
     proceeding pursuant to Articles 85 and 86 of the EC          (c) order the Commission to pay the Applicants' costs;
     Treaty (Case No IV/35.134-Trans-Atlantic Conference               and
     Agreement);
                                                                  (d) order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the
(b) in any event, annul the fine imposed on it or reduce               Applicants in providing a bank guarantee or other
     such fine by the amount considered appropriate by the             security in lieu of payment of the fine pending
     Court in all the circumstances;                                   judgment by the Court.
(c) order the Commission to pay the Applicant's costs;            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     and
                                                                  The pleas in law and main arguments are identical to
                                                                  those raised in Case T-191/98 (Atlantic Container Line
(d) order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the
                                                                  e.a./Commission).
     Applicant in providing a bank guarantee or other
     security in lieu of payment of the fine pending
     judgment by the Court.