CELEX: C2000/006/45
Language: en
Date: 2000-01-08 00:00:00
Title: Case T-218/99: Action brought on 30 September 1999 by Anton Dürbeck GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

C 6/24                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      8.1.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Action brought on 30 September 1999 by Anton Dürbeck
                                                                        GmbH against the Commission of the European Com-
— annul the Commission’s decision (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)                                           munities
    of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the
    Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
    Germany, and order that no demand for repayment should                                       (Case T-218/99)
    be made;
— alternatively, decide the matter in such way as the Court                                       (2000/C 6/45)
    shall consider to be fair and reasonable;
— order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                           (Language of the Case: German)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
T-210/99.                                                               European Communities on 30 September 1999 by Anton
                                                                        Dürbeck GmbH, Frankfurt am Main, Germany, represented by
                                                                        Gert Meier, Rechtsanwalt, Berrenrather Strasse 313, Cologne.
(1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        1. annul, on the ground of infringement of the Treaty, the
                                                                             Commission decision of 28 July 1999 on the adoption of
Action brought on 30 September 1999 by Ter Huurne’s                          transitional measures in favour of A. Dürbeck within the
Handelsmaatschappij B.V. against the Commission of the                       framework of the common organisation of the market in
                    European Communities                                     bananas;
                        (Case T-216/99)
                                                                        2. order the Commission to pay the costs.
                          (2000/C 6/44)
                   (Language of the Case: Dutch)                        Pleas in law and main arguments
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the              By the contested decision, the Commission refused to award
European Communities on 30 September 1999 by Ter Huur-                  the applicant additional licences for the import of
ne’s Handelsmaatschappij B.V., of Haaksbergen (Netherlands),            25 000 tonnes of bananas from third countries because a case
represented by H.C. van der Sijs, of the Enschede Bar, with an          of hardship was not present, the applicant’s current situation
address for service in Luxembourg at the Registry of the Court          was already to be regarded as balanced and that situation
of First Instance, Kirchberg.                                           could, moreover, have been foreseen.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        The applicant complains that Article 30 of Regulation
— annul the Commission’s decision (C(1999) 2539 final) (1)              No 404/93 (1) has been infringed.
    of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid granted by the
    Netherlands to 633 service stations in the region bordering
    Germany;                                                            According to the applicant, the hardship to be offset consists
                                                                        in its inability to import the bananas covered by the contract
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                which it concluded in 1991 with the enterprise Consultban in
                                                                        Machala, Ecuador for the weekly marketing of 100 000 to
                                                                        150 000 crates of bananas. It has also lost licences in respect
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         of 14 312 tonnes of bananas as a result of the change in
                                                                        the reference period pursuant to Article 4(2) of Regulation
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case             No 2362/98 (2). The ensuing loss of 75 % of its import rights
T-210/99.                                                               has caused the applicant serious difficulties and has practically
                                                                        meant its elimination from the market. The loss amounts to
                                                                        DM 3 578 000, that is to say double its share capital. Under
(1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
                                                                        Article 30 of Regulation No 404/93 the defendant is obliged
                                                                        to compensate for the hardship which has been caused by
                                                                        Regulation No 2362/98.
 ---pagebreak--- 8.1.2000              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 6/25
The applicant states that the defendant is proceeding on the             Action brought on 6 October 1999 by Luc Dejaiffe against
basis of incorrect facts when it assumes that the applicant’s               the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
contract with Consultban was extended by seven years after
Regulation No 2362/98 entered into force.                                                        (Case T-223/99)
(1) OJ L 47 of 25.2.1993, p. 1.                                                                    (2000/C 6/47)
(2) OJ L 293 of 31.10.1998, p. 33.
                                                                                            (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
                                                                         Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European Communities on 6 October 1999 by Luc Dejaiffe,
Action brought on 30 September 1999 by Joachim                           residing at Nivelles (Belgium), represented by Georges Vander-
           Behmer against the European Parliament                        sanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
                                                                         Luxembourg at the offices of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire
                        (Case T-220/99)                                  SARL, 2-4 Rue Beck.
                          (2000/C 6/46)                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         — annul the decision taken by the appointing authority of
                   (Language of the case: French)                            the Office on 21 December 1998 unilaterally terminating
                                                                             the applicant’s employment contract;
An action against the European Parliament was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                  — award the applicant, by way of compensation for the
on 30 September 1999 by Joachim Behmer, residing in                          material and non-material damage suffered by him, a sum,
Luxembourg, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Greta-Françoise                  to be assessed on an equitable basis, amounting to
Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an                 EUR 10 000 and a sum equivalent to the prejudice caused
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire               to his career and to the diminution in his pension rights
Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.                                              and allowances;
                                                                         — order the defendant to pay all the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul the European Parliament’s decision rejecting the                 Pleas in law and main arguments
     application by the applicant for the grade LA 3 post of
     Deputy Head of the German language Translation Division;
                                                                         The applicant contests the decision taken on 21 December
— annul the European Parliament’s decision appointing                    1998 by the President of the defendant organisation providing
     another person to that post;                                        for the early termination of the applicant’s contract of
                                                                         employment, pursuant to Article 5(b) of that contract and the
— order the Parliament to pay the costs.                                 provisions of Article 47(1)(b) of the Conditions of employment
                                                                         of other servants (‘the Conditions’), with effect from 15 Febru-
                                                                         ary 1999.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         According to the applicant’s account of the facts, that termin-
The applicant, a Grade LA 4 official, contests the appointing            ation constituted the appointing authority’s response to the
authority’s refusal to appoint him to the post of Deputy Head            way in which, at a meeting of a working group, he had hotly
of the German language Translation Division (career bracket:             contested the premature introduction of a software system,
LA 3).                                                                   pointing out certain technical deficiencies which would, in his
                                                                         view, have an adverse effect on the proper execution of
In support of his claims, he pleads infringement of:                     financial transactions and proposing technical steps to mitigate
                                                                         those deficiencies.
— Articles 7, 29 and 45 of the Staff Regulations;
                                                                         In support of his claim, the applicant pleads infringement of
— the principle of equal treatment;                                      Article 26 of the Staff Regulations and of the right to a fair
                                                                         hearing, the commission in the present case of a manifest error
— the principle of career progression.                                   of assessment, the unlawful nature of his dismissal, violation
                                                                         of the right to freedom of expression and of the principle of
The applicant also pleads a manifest error of assessment in the          proportionality, and failure to observe the rules governing
present case, as well as failure by the defendant to comply with         disciplinary proceedings (infringement of Article 50a of the
its obligation to provide a statement of reasons.                        Conditions).