CELEX: C1997/094/47
Language: en
Date: 1997-03-22 00:00:00
Title: Action brought on 30 January 1997 by Sofivo and Others against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-20/97)

No C 94/22         I EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      22 . 3 . 97
notification of the Trans-Atlantic Conference Agreement              — order the defendant to pay him compensation equal to
on 5 July 1994 in relation to the joint exercise of rate­                the remuneration which he would have received if he
making authority in respect of the inland portions within                had been reinstated, in accordance with Article 40 (4 )
the European Community of through-intermodal transport                    ( d) of the Staff Regulations, in the first post falling
services ('European Intermodal Authority').                              vacant, together with default interest at the rate of
                                                                          8 % per annum from the date when such remuneration
                                                                         became due until the date when it is paid,
The applicants claim that the contested decision does not
purport to withdraw immunity from fines in respect of
European Intermodal Authority in any other context.                  — order the defendant to pay the costs.
They submit that the contested decision is unlawful on the
following grounds, maintaining that each one of these
grounds is sufficient to justify its annulment:                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— the legal conditions established by the Court of Justice           Following a period of leave on personal grounds which
    for the withdrawal of immunity from fines are not met            commenced on 16 February 1991 , the applicant, a grade
    in this case,                                                    LA 7 official employed in Luxembourg, asked to be
                                                                     reinstated by fax of 15 December 1993 . He was reinstated
                                                                     in Unit G2 of the Translation Service in Luxembourg on
— the contested decision is incompatible with the order              16 February 1995 .
    of the President of the Court of First Instance of the
    European Communities in Case T-3 95/94 R [ 1995]
    ECR II, p. 595, upheld by the order of the President of          The applicant pleads infringement by the Commission of
    the Court of Justice in Case C-149/95 P(R),                      Article 40 (4 ) (d ) of the Staff Regulations, since it failed to
                                                                     verify the applicant's ability to satisfy the requirements of
                                                                     the two posts declared vacant in the German language
— the Commission infringed the applicants' rights of                 unit of the Translation Service in Brussels at the time
    defence in the procedure leading to the adoption of              when he asked to be reinstated, as well as three other
    the contested decision .                                         posts declared vacant in Units A2, D2 and E2 on
                                                                     20 January, 20 June and 22 November 1994.
                                                                     He further claims compensation in accordance with
                                                                     Articles 179 and 215 of the EC Treaty, since he received
                                                                     no remuneration in respect of the period from
Action brought on 29 January 1997 by Claude Richter                  15 December 1993 (the date of his request for
  against the Commission of the European Communities                 reinstatement). It follows that the Commission is bound to
                        Case T-19/97)                                compensate him by paying him the remuneration which he
                                                                     would have received from the date of his request for
                         97/C 94/46 )                                reinstatement or, at the latest, from the date when the two
                                                                     posts were declared vacant, until the date of his
               (Language of the case: French)                        reinstatement, 16 February 1995 .
An action against the Commission of European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 29 January
1997 by Claude Richter, residing in Luxembourg,
represented by Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and                Action brought on 30 January 1997 by Sofivo and Others
Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for                against the Commission of the European Communities
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson                                       ( Case T-20/97)
SARL, 30 rue de Cessange.
                                                                                                 ( 97/C 94/47 )
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                     (Language of the case: French)
— annul the Commission's decision rejecting his request
    for compensation for the fault committed by it in not            An action against the Commission of the European
    reinstating the applicant in the first vacant post               Communities was brought before the Court of First
    corresponding to his grade and abilities,                        Instance of the European Communities on 30 January
                                                                     1997 by Sofivo, established at Conde sur Vire ( France ),
                                                                     Sofivo Production, established at Brece ( France ), Sovinor,
— order the defendant to reconstitute the applicant's                established at Conde sur Vire (France ), Denkavit France,
    career with effect from 15 December 1993 or, at the              established at Montreuil-Bellay ( France ), Sobeval Viande,
    latest, from the date of publication of the first notice         established at Perigueux (France ), Serval, established at
    of vacancy of a post corresponding to his grade and              Sainte Eanne (France ), Besnier Industrie, established at
    abilities,                                                       Bourgbarre ( France), Sovida, established at Chateaubriand
 ---pagebreak--- 22 . 3 . 97        I EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 94/23
( France ), Sica Ouest Elevage, established at Ploudaniel             institution, or at least Article 1 ( 9 ) and ( 14 ) thereof,
( France), Guinde, established at Montauban de Bretagne               that part of the act being separable from its other
(France ), Tarbouriech, established at Villeneuve sur Lot             provisions,
(France), Mamellor, established at Charnay les Macon
( France ), Coopagri Bretagne, established at Landerneau          — order the Council to pay the costs.
(France ), Collet et Compagnie, established at
                                                                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Chateaubourg (France ), Kermene SA, established at Saint
Jacut du Mene (France ), and Vals, established in                 The act contested in the present case is Commission
Champagne ( France ), represented by Deborah Kryvian, of          Regulation ( EC ) No 2311/96 of 2 December 1996
the Rouen Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg          amending Regulation ( EEC ) No 3886/92 laying down
at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 1 1 rue Goethe.                   detailed rules for the application of premium schemes in
                                                                  the beef and veal sector, which implements Council
The applicants claim that the Court should:                       Regulation ( EC) No 2222/96 . The latter Regulation is the
                                                                  subject of proceedings for annulment in Cases T-14 and T­
— annul Regulation (EC ) No 2311/96 adopted on                    15/97. The pleas in law and main arguments are the same
     2 December 1996 by the Commission, a Community               as those relied on in those two cases .