CELEX: C2002/084/113
Language: en
Date: 2002-04-06 00:00:00
Title: Case T-323/01: Action brought on 19 December 2001 by Mercedes Alvarez Moreno against Commission of the European Communities

6.4.2002              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 84/61
In view of the inactivity of the Community institution, the             It was stated in the application that the Community Ship-
applicant, by letter of 26 July 2001, received by the Com-              owners should hold 60 % of the shares of the joint enterprise,
mission on 30 July 2001, more than 53 months after                      while the partner in the relevant third Country, Namibia,
the complaint was lodged, called on the Commission, in                  should hold 40 % of the shares. After the withdrawal of the
accordance with Article 232 of the EC Treaty, to adopt a                project of the Spanish company E. Vieira S.A. and the
position on the complaint and initiate the procedure under              replacement of two of the four vessels involved with two other
Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty.                                         vessels, the applicant and the Namibian partner concluded an
                                                                        agreement, according to which the applicant owned 28,51 %
                                                                        of the share capital, but only 13,68 % of the voting rights.
The Commission replied, after the two-month time-limit                  Finally, with effect from 1 May 1995, the applicant transferred
prescribed by Article 232, in a letter of 24 October 2001, in           part of its shareholding in the joint entreprise to the Namibian
which it does not define its position, but merely states that it        partner under an agreement providing that the applicant’s
is completing the internal preparatory work with regard to the          shareholding was reduced to 1 % of the share capital.
complaints.                                                             According to the contested Decision, the basis for providing
                                                                        financial aid has ceased to exist because of this reduction to
                                                                        1 % of the applicant’s shareholding in the joint undertaking,
                                                                        which is not be considered sufficient for a joint enterprise, as
                                                                        defined by Community Regulations.
Action brought on 17 December 2001 by Norway Sea-
foods Denmark A/S against the Commission of the                         The contested Decision infringes Article 44(1) of the above
                   European Communities                                 mentioned Council Regulation (EEC) No. 4028/86.
                        (Case T-319/01)                                 —     The reduction of the applicant’s shareholding in the joint
                                                                              enterprise to 1 % did not mean that a joint enterprise
                                                                              within the meaning of the Regulation no longer existed.
                        (2002/C 84/112)
                                                                        —     The applicant had a legitimate expectation that the
                  (Language of the case: English)                             reduction of the Applicant’s shareholding in the joint
                                                                              enterprise to 1 % would not result in any demand for
                                                                              repayment of aid from the Commission.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 17 December 2001 by Norway                      (1) OJ L 380 of 31.12.1990, p. 1.
Seafoods Denmark A/S, represented by Mr Jacob Ørndrup of
Gorrissen Federspiel Kierkegaard, Copenhagen (Denmark).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul Commission Decision K(2001)3079 of 16 October
      2001
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.                            Action brought on 19 December 2001 by Mercedes
                                                                        Alvarez Moreno against Commission of the European
                                                                                                 Communities
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                                (Case T-323/01)
The present application has been lodged against Commission
Decision K(2001)3079 of 16 October 2001, regarding the                                          (2002/C 84/113)
reduction and repayment of financial aid to Foodmark A/S
under Commission Decision K(93)1823 of 5 July 1993, as
amended by Decision K(94)119 of 27 January 1994, for                                       (Language of the case: French)
Project SM/DNK/02/93, the object of which was an application
for financial aid pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC)
No. 4028/88 of 18 December 1986, on Community measures
to improve and adapt structures in the fisheries and aquacul-
ture sector as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)                      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
No. 3944/90 of 20 December 1990 (1). The applicant’s name               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
at the time of this application was Foodmark A/S; this name             European Communities on 19 December 2001 by Mercedes
was later changed to Foodmark Holding A/S and later still to            Alvarez Moreno, residing in Berlin, represented by Georges
Norway Seafoods Denmark A/S.                                            Vandersanden and Laura Levi, avocats.
 ---pagebreak--- C 84/62                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       6.4.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision taken by the defendant, as communi-             —     annul the applicant’s staff report for 1995-1997 inas-
      cated to her by letters of 13 February 2001 and 23 Febru-                much as it does not take account of the opinion of the ad
      ary 2001, to apply an age limit set at 65 years to freelance             hoc working party, the ad hoc appeals joint working party
      interpreters and therefore to apply that age limit to her;               and the staff reports Joint Committee, in that it does not
                                                                               assess his duties as a trade union representative and his
                                                                               status as an elected member as being part of the duties
—     annul, in so far as necessary, the rejection of the                      which he is required to undertake in his institution;
      applicant’s complaint by the Commission on 7 September
      2001, received on 10 September 2001;                               —     make an order as to costs requiring the defendant to pay
                                                                               the costs and fees incurred.
—     find that the applicant may continue to work as freelance
      interpreter, for the Community institutions, beyond the
      age of 65;
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
—     make good the damage caused to the applicant provision-
      ally assessed at 1 euro;
                                                                         The applicant, an official of the Commission, contests the
                                                                         rejection of his complaint seeking the annulment of his staff
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs.                          report for 1995-1997.
                                                                         In support of his arguments, he claims that certain assessments
                                                                         are not justified and that his professional situation and his
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          career development were adversely affected following his
                                                                         election to a local staff committee and as a result of his union
                                                                         activities. He alleges psychological harassment or mobbing
                                                                         intended to restrict his freedom of association, infringement of
In support of her arguments, the applicant relies on the same            the general provisions implementing Article 43 of the Staff
pleas in law as those put forward in T-153/01 Mercedes                   Regulations and breach of the principle of sound adminis-
Alvarez Moreno v Commission (OJ 2001 C 275, p. 11).                      tration.
                                                                         Action brought on 21 December 2001 by Archer Daniels
Action brought on 21 December 2001 by Giorgio Lebedef                    Midland Company against the Commission of the Euro-
    against Commission of the European Communities                                              pean Communities
                                                                                                  (Case T-329/01)
                         (Case T-326/01)
                                                                                                  (2002/C 84/115)
                         (2002/C 84/114)
                                                                                           (Language of the case: English)
                   (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
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                European Communities on 21 December 2001 by Archer
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               Daniels Midland Company, represented by Professor Carl Otto
European Communities on 21 December 2001 by Giorgio                      Lenz, Ms Lynda Martin Alegi, Mr Edward William Batchelor
Lebedef, residing in Senningerberg (Grand Duchy of Luxem-                and Ms Marta Garcia of Baker & McKenzie, London (United
bourg), represented by Gilles Bounéou, lawyer.                           Kingdom).