CELEX: C1995/351/34
Language: en
Date: 1995-12-30 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 30 October 1995 by International Express Carriers Conference (IECC) against Commission of the European Communities (Case T-204/95)

30 . 12 . 95            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 351 / 17
— order the Commission to pay the sum of Bfrs 750 000,                 Lastly, the applicant pleads infringement of Articles 25 and
      subject to increase or decrease in the course of the             88 of the Staff Regulations, in that the decision to suspend
      proceedings , by way of compensation for the combined            him did not fulfil the requirement to provide a statement of
      material and non-material damage suffered by the                 reasons in the light of the conditions governing the
      applicant as a result of the press campaign and malicious        application of the suspension provided for by the
      and defamatory allegations to which he has been                  aforementioned Article 88 .
      subjected ,
                                                                       As regards the application for compensation, the applicant
— order that the operative part of the judgment to be                  states, first, that the pursuit of irregular disciplinary
      delivered in the case be published, at the Commission's          proceedings constitutes wrongful conduct on the part of the
      expense, in the following newspapers : The Times, the            defendant and that he has suffered considerable material
      Daily Telegraph and the Financial Times,                         and non-material damage as a result of the matters set out.
                                                                       He maintains, second, that the publicity indulged in by the
— order the Commission to pay all of the costs .                       defendant in relation to him has caused him undeniable
                                                                       harm, and he seeks, by way of reparation, an order that the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                    judgment to be delivered in the case be published at the
                                                                       expense of the Commission in the principal British
The applicant, who is a Head of Unit in the Commission's               newspapers which have taken up this matter.
Diectorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs,
states that he several times requested, without success,
permission to publish articles and contributions of an
analytical nature concerning the European monetary
system . Following the refusal by the Commission, he sought
and was granted leave on personal grounds, justified by
family reasons, in the course of which he completed a                  Action brought on 30 October 1995 by International
synthetical version of his analyses which was published                Express Carriers Conference ( IECC ) against Commission of
under the title : ' The rotten heart of Europe — The dirty war                           the European Communities
for Europe 's money '.                                                                          ( Case T-204/95 )
                                                                                                  ( 95/C 351 /34 )
The applicant states that the publication of the work met
with      an  immediate      reaction   from   the   Commission
 authorities : on 5 September 1995 , The Times published a                             (Language of the case: English)
 statement by the Commission's spokesman maintaining
 that there was no place in the Commission for an official              An action against the Commission of the European
 who had written such a work . On the day after that                    Communities was brought before the Court of First
 statement of principle was made, the appointing authority              Instance of the European Communities on 30 October 1995
 notified the applicant of its intention to institute disciplinary      by International Express Carriers Conference (IECC ),
 proceedings against him ( the first contested act ). On                represented by Eric Morgan de Rivery and Jacques Derenne,
 27 September 1995 a decision was taken to suspend him on               with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
 the basis of Article 88 of the Staff Regulations of officials          of Bonn & Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume, L-1650 .
 ( the second contested act ). The applicant maintains that the
 Commission meanwhile took part in a press campaign
 which it substantially fuelled : a number of his 'colleagues'          The applicant claims that the Court should :
 were quoted by the press in support of statements which
 were mendacious , defamatory or derogatory and which                   — declare the Commission's letter No SG(95)D/10794
 concerned his person , his state of health and his professional            non-existent,
 reputation. On 4 October 1995 the Commission finally
 decided to bring the matter before the Disciplinary Board              — in the alternative, annul Commission Decision No
  ( the third contested act ).                                               SG(95)D/ 10794 of 14 August 1995 and order such
                                                                             further or other relief as the Court considers appropriate
 The applicant considers that the Commission has failed to                   in order for the Commission to comply with Article 176
  observe the second paragraph of Article 87 of the Staff                    of the EC Treaty ,
  Regulations of officials, Annex IX to those Regulations, in
  particular Article 1 and the second paragraph of Article 8 ,          — order the Commission to pay the costs .
  and the principles governing ' disciplinary policy' as
  expressed in the note of 24 November 1983 , in that it has
  prejudged the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings and              Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
  has breached the principle of confidentiality inherent to
   proceedings of that kind .                                            The applicant, a professional organization composed of
                                                                         certain important private express companies, filed with the
   He also pleads a breach of the principle of equality, in that         Commission, on 13 July 1988 , a complaint under
   the Commission failed in his case to follow its usual practice,       Article 3 ( 2 ) of Regulation No 17/62 concerning the
   which is to authorize public utterances made without prior            infringement ( i ) of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty by certain
   permission by officials who are not in active service .               European public postal operators and ( ii ) of Article 86 of the
 ---pagebreak--- No C 351 / 18           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    30 . 12 . 95
Treaty by two post offices which relied upon a market                            legitimate expectations, non-discrimination and
allocation     scheme     set  out   in  the  Universal     Postal               sound administration .
Convention. The behaviour in question of the post offices
named in the complaint was directed towards suppressing                (>) OJ No C 119 , 13 . 5 . 1995 , p . 12 .
or restraining 'remail' competition , a practice whereby a             ( 2 ) OJ No C 189 , 22 . 7 . 1995 , p . 17.
mailer prepares international mail in one country but posts            (<) OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 , p . 22 .
the mail not with the post office of that country but with a
post office located in another country .
On 23 November 1994 , the applicant called on the
Commission to act, under Article 175 , by adopting a                   Action brought on 3 November 1995 by Josef Gierse against
definitive position on the complaint as far as Article 85 is           the Council of the European Union and the Commission of
concerned . On 15 February 1995 , not having received any                                 the European Communities
decision from the Commission, the applicant lodged at the
                                                                                                ( Case T-206/95 )
Court of First Instance an application under Article 175
against the Commission for failure to act ( Case T-28/95 ) ( ! ).                                  ( 95/C 351 /35 )
On 17 February 1995 , the Commission adopted Decision
SG(95 ) D/ 1790, rejecting as regards Article 85 of the EC                              (Language of the case: German)
Treaty, the complaint made by the applicant. The applicant
challenged that Decision by its application of 18 April 1995           An action against the Council of the European Union and
( Case T-l 10/95 ) ( 2 ). On 6 April 1995 , the Commission             the Commission of the European Communities was brought
adopted Decision SG(95)D/4438 , rejecting the second part              before the Court of First Instance of the European
of the aforementioned complaint. The applicant sought the               Communities on 3 November 1995 by Josef Gierse, residing
annulment of that Decision by its application of 20 June               at Schmallenberg ( Federal Republic of Germany ),
 1995 ( Case T-133/95 ) ( 3 ). On 14 August 1995 , the                 represented by Bernd Meisterernst, Mechtild Düsing,
Commission further adopted the purported Decision, which                Dietrich Manstetten, Dr Frank Schulze and Dr Winfried
is contested here, rejecting the complaint with respect to the          Haneklaus, Rechtsanwälte, Münster, with an address for
application of Article 25 of the Universal Postal Convention            service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dupong &
solely to ABC remail by the German, UK and French post                  Associés, 14a Rue des Bains .
offices .
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
In this respect the applicant submits the following pleas in
 law:                                                                   ( 1 ) order the defendants jointly and severally to pay to the
                                                                              applicant milk quota compensation ( SLOM-III ) for the
— as a principal plea, that the Commission's purported                        period from 2 April 1984 to 31 March 1993 ,
    Decision of 14 August 1995 should be declared                             amounting to DM 14 219,09, together with 8%
    non-existent because it constitutes a manifestly illegal                  interest from 19 May 1992 , and to pay the costs of the
    act ,                                                                     proceedings;
— in the alternative, that the Decision should be annulled,             ( 2 ) stay the proceedings .
    on the grounds of:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    — infringement of Article 190 of the EC Treaty in that
          the Commission fails to state its reasons ( i ) as to the     The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
          allegation that the Post Offices' use of Article 25 of        in Case T-20/94 .
          the UPU Convention infringes Article 85 of the EC
          Treaty, and ( ii ) as to the fact that it adopted two
          different positions in respect of the same factual and
          legal situation,
     — infringement of Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty               Action brought on 2 November 1995 by Maria de los
          through the Commission 's failure to condemn the               Angeles Ibarra Gil against the Commission of the European
          Post Offices' efforts to restrain the development of                                       Communities
          ABC remail through the use of the authority and                                        ( Case T-207/95 )
          purported authority of Article 25 of the UPU                                              ( 95/C 351 /36 )
          Convention,
     — misuse of powers in that the Commission's main                                    (Language of the case: French)
          purpose in rejecting the complaint was in fact to
          achieve political objectives,                                  An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities was brought before the Court of First
     — breach of certain general principles of law in that, in           Instance of the European Communities on 2 November
          adopting the decision, the Commission infringed the             1 995 by Maria de los Angeles Ibarra Gil, residing in Brussels
          principles of legal certainty, the protection of               ( Belgium ), represented by Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege