CELEX: C1999/071/59
Language: en
Date: 1999-03-13 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 23 December 1998 by Carlo De Nicola against European Investment Bank (Case T-208/98)

13.3.1999            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 71/31
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                The applicants claim that the Court should:
The applicants contest the refusal by the French customs           Ð allow the applicants' claim to be entitled to a rebate.
authorities of a rebate application lodged on 20 December
1995 in relation to certain imports of mushrooms
originating in and emanating from Poland.                          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   The applicants contest the refusal by the French customs
The dispute concerns, in essence, a disagreement
                                                                   authorities of a rebate application lodged on 23 October
concerning the customs nomenclature applicable to the
                                                                   1995 in relation to certain imports of mushrooms
products in question and the question whether those
                                                                   originating in and emanating from Poland.
products should be allocated to the tariff quota for
Poland.
                                                                   The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
                                                                   Case T-205/98 Clauni v Commission.
The applicants state that the national authorities did not
arrange for any proper analysis of the goods by an
independent authority with a view to verifying the
administrative authorities' assertion that the mushrooms
were deep-cooked. On the contrary, the only serious and
independent analysis carried out in the present case
concluded that the products were not deep-cooked.
                                                                   Action brought on 23 December 1998 by Carlo De Nicola
                                                                                against European Investment Bank
The applicants also maintain that the Commission, as the                                 (Case T-208/98)
general guardian of the Treaty, possesses its own                                         (1999/C 71/59)
competence in customs matters, so that any failure on the
part of customs authorities of the Member States to
observe the principles of Community law or to forward a                           (Language of the case: Italian)
rebate application must result in the Communities
incurring non-contractual liability in the application of
Community customs law.                                             An action against the European Investment Bank was
                                                                   brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                   Communities on 23 December 1998 by Carlo De Nicola,
Lastly, for the purposes of providing all such further             an official of the European Investment Bank, represented
clarification of their position as may be necessary, the           by Luigi Isola of the Rome Bar, with an address for service
applicants refer to an expert's report annexed to the              in Luxembourg at 16 Rue du Kiem, 8030 Strassen.
application.
                                                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   Ð annul the promotions communicated on 6 August
                                                                       1998 in so far as they do not contain the applicant's
                                                                       name;
Action brought on 21 December 1998 by Clauni S.A. and
Others against the Commission of the European
                        Communities
                                                                   Ð annul the decision contained in the report of the
                      (Case T-206/98)                                  Appeals Committee attached to the letter sent by Mr
                                                                       Pietila dated 23 September 1998; and
                       (1999/C 71/58)
                                                                   Ð order the defendant to pay compensation for physical,
               (Language of the case: French)                          non-material and material damage in the terms set out
                                                                       above.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Instance of the European Communities on 21 December
1998 by Clauni S.A., Jean Marie BissieÁres, Loma S.A. and
AndreÂ Lompech, respectively domiciled at Le Passage, La           The material facts are as set forth in Case T-7/98 De
Croix Blanche and Penne d'Agenais (France), represented            Nicola v EIB (1). The applicant would add however that he
by Daniel VeyssieÁre, of the Bar of Villeneuve sur Lot             has had to leave his employment with the defendant as a
(France), with an address for service in Luxembourg at the         result of the strong pressure which he claims to have been
Chambers of Aloïse May, 31 Grand-Rue.                              subjected to by his immediate superiors.
 ---pagebreak--- C 71/32              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   13.3.1999
In support of his claims, the applicant states that there has      In respect of that decision, the applicant pleads:
been misuse of power inasmuch as the Staff Regulations
have been infringed.
                                                                   Ð infringement of Article 88 of the Staff Regulations, in
                                                                       so far as the conditions for the application of that
(1) OJ C 94, 28.3.1998, p. 30.
                                                                       article are not satisfied in the present case;
                                                                   Ð breach of the duty to state reasons;
                                                                   Ð breach of the principle of proportionality and the duty
Action brought on 24 December 1998 by Claude Willeme                   to have regard for the welfare of officials;
     against Commission of the European Communities
                       (Case T-211/98)
                                                                   Ð breach of the interest of the service and the principle
                        (1999/C 71/60)                                 of     good    management        practice    and    sound
                                                                       administration;
               (Language of the case: French)
                                                                   Ð breach of the principle of non-discrimination, in so far
An action against the Commission of the European                       as facts of the type alleged have never resulted in a
Communities was brought before the Court of First                      decision to suspend an official, which is limited to
Instance of the European Communities on 24 December                    much more serious facts;
1998 by Claude Willeme, residing in Brussels, represented
by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the              Ð breach of the rights of the defence.
offices of the Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de
Cessange.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                   Action brought on 29 December 1998 by Neptune Orient
Ð annul the appointing authority's decision of
                                                                   Lines Limited against the Commission of the European
    16 December 1998 to suspend the applicant from his
                                                                                            Communities
    duties and to withhold a sum equal to one half of his
    basic salary from his remuneration with immediate                                     (Case T-212/98)
    effect;
                                                                                           (1999/C 71/61)
Ð order the European Commission to pay damages by
    way of compensation for the material and the                                  (Language of the case: English)
    non-material loss suffered as a result of the unlawful
    nature of the decision of 16 December 1998; those              An action against the Commission of the European
    damages are provisionally assessed at EUR 31 001;              Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities on 29 December
Ð order the defendant to pay the costs.                            1998 by Neptune Orient Lines Limited, represented by
                                                                   John Pheasant, Nicholas Bromfield and Matthew Levitt of
                                                                   Lovell White Durrant, Solicitors, and Alexandre R. M.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                Nourry, Solicitor, and Marleen J. J. Van Kerckhove of
                                                                   Clifford Chance with an address for service in
The contested decision was adopted in the context of               Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11, rue
disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant           Goethe.
when, following an investigation carried out by the Unit
on Coordination of Fraud Prevention (UCLAF), the                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
administration of the defendant institution learned that his
wife had been awarded an employment contract with a
contractor of the Commission and had been paid for six             (a) annul the decision of 16 September 1998 relating to a
months notwithstanding the fact that she only worked for               proceeding pursuant to Articles 85 and 86 of the EC
two weeks. The appointing authority considered that it                 Treaty (Case No IV/35.134-Trans-Atlantic Conference
was apparent from the information gathered by the                      Agreement);
UCLAF that the applicant's wife had been awarded that
contract because of the post held by the applicant at the
Security Office in Brussels. It therefore decided to initiate      (b) in any event, annul the fine imposed on it or reduce
the disciplinary proceedings and to adopt the contested                such fine by the amount considered appropriate by the
decision.                                                              Court in all the circumstances;