CELEX: C2000/285/36
Language: en
Date: 2000-10-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-205/00: Action brought on 3 August 2000 by RENCO S.A. against the Council of the European Union

7.10.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 285/19
Action brought on 31 July 2000 by Agnès Ajour and                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
115 others against the Commission of the European
                           Communities                                     —     annul the express decision of the Commission of the
                                                                                 European Communities of 19 July 2000 refusing to apply
                          (Case T-201/00)                                        Article 3 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations in relation
                                                                                 to him;
                          (2000/C 285/34)                                  —     rule that the applicant is to be re-assigned to a third
                                                                                 country by no later than 1 September 2000, in accord-
                                                                                 ance with Article 3 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations;
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           —     order the Commission of the European Communities to
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                        pay all the costs of the proceedings.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 31 July 2000 by Agnès Ajour and
115 others, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique                   Pleas in law and main arguments
Peere, of the Brussels Bar.
                                                                           The applicant, who is assigned to the Office for Official
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                Publications of the European Communities, is contesting the
                                                                           decision rejecting the request submitted by him on 6 June
—     annul the decisions of the Commission concerning the                 2000, by which he applied to be assigned to a third country
      drawing-up of the applicants’ pay slips for the months               pursuant to Article 3 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations of
      from September to December 1999;                                     officials. That request was rejected on the ground that the
                                                                           applicant did not fall within the category of staff covered by
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                the provision in question.
                                                                           In support of his application, he maintains that the decision in
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           issue:
The applicants, who are seconded to the Office for Veterinary              —     infringes Articles 2 and 3 of Annex X to the Staff
and Plant-Health Inspection and Control in Dublin, are con-                      Regulations;
testing their pay slips for the months from September to
December 1999, maintaining that these were drawn up on the                 —     infringes Article 2 of the Staff Regulations, as well as the
basis of the weighting for Ireland, which has been fixed                         principle of the hierarchy of appointing authorities and
without taking account of the cost of living in Dublin. They                     the principle of the hierarchy of norms;
claim that, by applying that illegal weighting for the purposes
of calculating their remuneration, the Commission has                      —     infringes the principle of the protection of legitimate
infringed Articles 64 and 65a of the Staff Regulations of                        expectations;
officials, as well as the principles of equal treatment, reasonable
career prospects and freedom of movement for workers.                      —     is vitiated by misuse of powers and abuse of process; and
                                                                           —     infringes Article 25 of the Staff Regulations.
Action brought on 1 August 2000 by Mario Costacurta
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           Action brought on 3 August 2000 by RENCO S.A. against
                          (Case T-202/00)                                                 the Council of the European Union
                          (2000/C 285/35)                                                           (Case T-205/00)
                    (Language of the case: French)                                                  (2000/C 285/36)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                               (Language of the case: French)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 1 August 2000 by Mario Costacur-
ta, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Marc Petit, of the              An action against the Council of the European Union was
Luxembourg Bar.                                                            brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
 ---pagebreak--- C 285/20              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        7.10.2000
Communities on 3 August 2000 by RENCO S.A., established                 whether, upon the award of the contract in issue, the
in Milan (Italy), represented by Francesco Apruzzi, of the              contracting authority did actually observe the conditions laid
Brussels Bar, and Denis Philippe, of the Luxembourg Bar.                down for ensuring that the tender corresponded to the contract
                                                                        specifications.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        (1) Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the
                                                                            coordination of procedures for the award of public works
                                                                            contracts (OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 54, as corrected by L 111 of
—     annul the decision of the Council of the European
                                                                            30.4.1994, p. 115).
      Union of 4 July 2000, issued by letter from the General           (2) Council Decision 93/371/EC of 20 December 1993 on public
      Secretariat of the Council of the European Union, ref.                access to Council documents (OJ L 340 of 31.12.1993, p. 43).
      IMM-2000/3188-JB-pm;
—     order the Council of the European Union to pay all the
      costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Action brought on 4 August 2000 by Merja Hult against
                                                                               the Commission of the European Communities
The present action is directed against the decision of the                                        (Case T-206/00)
Council of the European Union of 4 July 2000, issued by letter
from its General Secretariat (ref. IMM-2000/3188-JB-pm),                                          (2000/C 285/37)
refusing to accede to the request made by the applicant
company for access to the administrative file concerning the
evaluation of tenders for the contract entitled ‘Installation and
maintenance works to be carried out in the buildings of the                                 (Language of the case: French)
Council of the European Union (JO/S146-107865)’, from
which that company was excluded.                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 4 August 2000 by Merja Hult,
The contract in question, which was of a restricted nature,             residing at Howald (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), represented
involved a study of, and the carrying-out and coordination of,          by Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar.
a general project for installation, alteration and maintenance
works in relation to the Council’s buildings.                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     annul the decision of the Commission fixing the appli-
The applicant points out that, when the tender bids were                      cant’s classification on recruitment in grade A 7, step 1;
opened by the committee evaluating the tenders, it appeared
that the lowest price for the provision of the works in question        —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
was that proposed by the applicant.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant company maintains, first, that the position
adopted by the Council is not in accordance with the policy of
openness and transparency introduced and pursued by the                 The applicant in the present case, who successfully passed
Community authorities since October 1992. It further states             open competition EUR/A/123, contests the decision of the
that, so far as concerns Article 8 of Directive 93/37/EEC (1), as       appointing authority classifying her in grade A 7, step 1, on
well as Decision 93/371/EC (2) and the Code of Conduct for              her appointment as a category A official.
public access to documents, the defendant has not indicated
the precise provision and the interests needing to be protected         In support of her claims, the applicant pleads:
which purportedly prevent it from communicating the docu-
ments requested to the applicant. By the same token, the                —     failure to comply with the obligation to provide a
Council has not stated any reasons as to why the contents of                  statement of reasons, infringement of the second para-
the administrative file might be covered by one of the                        graph of Article 32 of the Staff Regulations and breach
exceptions provided for in Article 8 of Directive 93/37/EEC                   of the decision concerning the criteria applicable to
and/or Decision 93/371/EC.                                                    appointment in grade and classification in step of Com-
                                                                              mission officials on recruitment;
In those circumstances, the applicant is unable to assess the           —     the existence, in the present case, of a manifest error of
extent to which the decision at issue may be lawful or to verify              assessment;