CELEX: C2002/261/38
Language: en
Date: 2002-10-26 00:00:00
Title: Case T-275/02: Action brought on 9 September 2002 by D against European Investment Bank

C 261/20               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    26.10.2002
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Action brought on 9 September 2002 by D against
                                                                                            European Investment Bank
—     annul the decision of the Commission notified in a letter
      of 11 June 2002 concerning ERDF action No 66 and the                                        (Case T-275/02)
      correction of the accounts relating to ERDF action No 67;
—     order the Commission to pay the expenditure incurred                                        (2002/C 261/38)
      by the Comune di Napoli in these proceedings, including
      in respect of lawyers’ fees.
                                                                                             (Language of the case: French)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          An action against the European Investment Bank was brought
                                                                         before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                         on 9 September 2002 by D, represented by Joëlle Choucroun,
                                                                         lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
The present action seeks the annulment of the decision of
11 June 2002 closing ERDF file 85 05 03 066 (hereafter ‘ERDF
No 66’) — ‘Metropolitan link between Museo and Dante’ —
by which the European Commission reduced the amount of                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
the contribution initially granted for completion of the project
in question and implicitly rejecting the request for adjustment
of the balance relating to earlier related ERDF action                   —     declare the present action admissible and well founded;
No 85 05 03 067 (hereafter ‘ERDF No 67’) — ‘Rail link —
Naples Town Centre’. The contested decision accepted a level             —     annul the unilateral decision of the European Investment
of expenditure lower than the amount initially provided for and                Bank dated 26 March 2002 concerning the four-month
actually incurred, and accordingly reduced the contribution                    extension of the six-month trial-period agreed between
initially agreed by the defendant.                                             the parties;
                                                                         —     annul the decision of the European Investment Bank
In support of its claims, the applicant alleges breach of the                  dated 25 June 2002, reproduced on 28 June 2002,
principle that legitimate expectations be protected and of                     unilaterally terminating outside the trial period and with
fairness, as well as failure to provide reasons.                               effect from 15 July 2002 the fixed-period employment
                                                                               contract with the applicant signed on 2 October 2001;
                                                                         —     order the European Investment Bank to pay to the
The applicant claims in that regard that the Commission:                       applicant EUR 45 000 (forty-five thousand euros) by way
                                                                               of damages;
—     gave rise, by its own previous conduct, to legitimate
      expectations on the part of the applicant regarding the            —     order the European Investment Bank to pay the costs.
      possibility that it might receive the full agreed amount,
      since the work covered by the intervention had been
      completed as planned, and the eligible expenditure —
      actually incurred and properly accounted for — were on
      the whole not less than the initial planned investment.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
—     rejected the request for adjustment of the balance of
      ERDF intervention No 67 and reduced the contribution               The applicant in the present case contests the extension of the
      provided for in the context of ERDF No 66 on the ground            probation period to be worked for the defendant, together
      that the eligible expenditure was of a lower amount (in            with its unilateral termination of the applicant’s employment
      that it was erroneously already attributed to the new              contract at the end of that period.
      intervention), despite the fact the expenditure incurred
      was on the whole greater and the acknowledgment, by
      the defendant, that the work had been completed in
      accordance with the project.                                       In support of the arguments put forward, the applicant alleges:
                                                                         —     Infringement of the principle of legality, in that neither
                                                                               the letter engaging him nor the Staff Regulations of the
 ---pagebreak--- 26.10.2002             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 261/21
      Bank provide for any extension of the probation period;                  Removal from the register of Case T-50/01 ( 1)
      the bank cannot claim that there has been an amendment
      in that regard.                                                                          (2002/C 261/39)
—     Infringement of the principle pacta sunt servanda, in that                          (Language of the Case: English)
      the Bank did not exercise, within the probation period,
      its right of termination without requiring to give reasons
      and with 15 days’ notice and the defendant cannot
      unilaterally modify the terms of the contract.                   By order of 11 July 2002 the President of the First Chamber of
                                                                       the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
                                                                       ordered the removal from the register of Case T-50/01:
The applicant further alleges breach of the duty to have regard        Saffron Investments N.V. v Commission of the European
for the welfare of officials and breach of the principle that          Communities.
legitimate expectations be protected.
                                                                       (1 ) OJ C 200, 14.7.2001.