CELEX: C2003/200/56
Language: en
Date: 2003-08-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-241/03: Action brought on 16 June 2003 by Luigi Maruccio against the Commission of the European Communities

23.8.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 200/31
In support of its action the applicant relies on the following               Action brought on 16 June 2003 by Luigi Maruccio
grounds:                                                                       against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                                       (Case T-241/03)
In respect of its claims for the annulment of the contested
decision:
                                                                                                      (2003/C 200/56)
—      alleged infringements of procedural rules, more particu-
       larly alleged infringement of the rights of the defence, by                              (Language of the case: Italian)
       reason of the alleged failure to provide reasons in the
       statement of objections, and alleged infringement of
       essential procedural requirements owing to the alleged
       insufficiency of the reasoning of the decision on not                 An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
       exceeding the ceiling of 10 % of turnover in determining              nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
       the amount of the fine;                                               European Communities on 16 June 2003 by Luigi Maruccio,
                                                                             represented by Prof. Luciano Garofalo.
—      manifest errors of appraisal and law concerning the
       existence and the characterisation of the agreement                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
       covered by the contested decision and its effect on
       competition;                                                          —     annul the note dated 15 October 2002;
—      alleged infringement of Regulation 26/62 (1) in that the              —     order the defendant to pay the applicant damages in the
       Commission should have granted the derogation provided                      sum of EUR 100 000, without prejudice to any subse-
       for by Article 2 of that regulation;                                        quent applicant for further damages.
—      alleged infringement of Article 15(2) of Regulation 17/
       62 (2) in that the Commission has given no information
       on the turnover used in determining the fines and has                 Pleas in law and main arguments
       not checked whether the amount of the fine was within
       the limit of 10 % of turnover.
                                                                             The applicant was employed at the defendant's delegation in
                                                                             Angola. He challenges the decision contained in a note dated
In respect of its claims for the reduction of the amount of the              15 October 2002 informing him, amongst other things, that
fine imposed, the applicant relies on the following grounds:                 in his absence on sick leave in Italy, where he was awaiting
                                                                             reassignment to another service, it would be necessary for
                                                                             agents of the delegation to enter the lodgings reserved for his
—      alleged infringement of Point 5(b) of the guidelines for              occupation and to permit others to enter thereon in order to
       determining the amount of the fine (3), in relation to the            pack up his personal effects.
       calculation of the amount of the fine;
                                                                             In support of his claim, the applicants argues that, irrespective
—      alleged manifest errors of appraisal and law concerning               of whether or not the note was put into effect, it contains a
       the characterisation of the infringement as ‘very serious’            decision which is unlawful for the following reasons:
       and of the agreement as ‘secret’, the alleged failure to take
       account of extenuating circumstances (lack of effect on               —     Infringement of the law by reason of trespass to the
       the market, cessation of the infringement as soon as the                    home, unlawful appropriation of property and invasion
       Commission intervened, the applicant's exclusively passive                  of privacy;
       role in the making of the agreement), and the determina-
       tion as to the duration of the agreement;                             —     Breach of the principle of ‘neminem laedere’ in that the
                                                                                   note in issue was sent against a background of aggressive
—      alleged infringement of Article 15(2) of Regulation 17/62                   behaviour towards and persecution of the applicant;
       concerning the fixing of the amount of the fine;
                                                                             —     Breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of
                                                                                   officials;
—      alleged infringement of the principle that penalties should
       not be cumulative.
                                                                             —     Breach of the principle of force majeure and of the prin-
                                                                                   ciple of reasonableness in that the defendant failed to take
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1959-62 (II), p. 20.                               the applicant's state of health into account.
(2) OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962 (I), p. 87. Amended on the
    last occasion by Regulation (EC) No 1216/1992 (OJ 1999 L 148,
    p. 5).                                                                   Lastly, the applicant argues breach of the duty to state reasons
(3) Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to            and of the principle of the protection of legitimate expecta-
    Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17 etc., (OJ 1998 C 9, p. 3).             tions.