CELEX: C2000/135/22
Language: en
Date: 2000-05-13 00:00:00
Title: Case T-14/00: Action brought on 19 January 2000 by CAV Ulestraten-Schimmert-Hulsberg and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

13.5.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 135/11
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               The applicants claim that the Court should:
                       of 22 February 2000                                (1) Declare the action to be admissible;
in Case T-22/99: Gustave Rose v Commission of the                         (2) Annul the Commission’s decision [C(1999) 2539 final] (1)
                   European Communities (1)                                   of 20 July 1999 or annul Articles 2 and 3 of the decision
                                                                              in so far as they provide, with reference to (one of) the
(Officials — Refusal of promotion — Guide to promotion                        applicants, that any amounts received by the applicant(s)
— Protection of legitimate expectations — Misuse of powers                    pursuant to the temporary arrangements (subsidies for
             — Examination of comparative merits)                             service stations along the border with Germany) are to be
                                                                              treated as constituting unlawful State aid within the
                          (2000/C 135/20)                                     meaning of Article 87(1) EC and/or must be repaid by the
                                                                              applicant(s), and/or in so far as it follows from that decision
                                                                              that any amounts which may or must be paid to the
                    (Language of the case: French)                            applicant(s) pursuant to the temporary arrangements are
                                                                              correctly classified as constituting unlawful aid for the
In Case T-22/99: Gustave Rose, an official of the Commission                  purposes of Article 87(1) EC;
of the European Communities, residing at Goutroux (Belgium),
represented by L. Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an address             (3) Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of C. Kremer,
6 Rue Heinrich Heine, v Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: C. Berardis-Kayser and F. Duvieusart-                Pleas in law and main arguments
Clotuche) — application for annulment of the Commission’s
decision not to promote the applicant to grade C 1 in the
course of the 1998 promotions procedure — the Court                       The pleas in law and the main arguments are similar to those
of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: R. Garcı́a-               in Case T-318/99.
Valdecasas, President, and P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges;
J. Palacio González, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given         (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
a judgment on 22 February 2000, in which it:
1. Annuls the Commission’s decision not to promote the applicant
     to grade C 1 in the course of the 1998 promotions procedure;
2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.
                                                                          Action brought on 19 January 2000 by CAV Ulestraten-
                                                                          Schimmert-Hulsberg and Others against the Commission
                                                                                          of the European Communities
                                                                                                   (Case T-14/00)
Action brought on 19 January 2000 by S.W.M. Baltussen
and Others against the Commission of the European                                                 (2000/C 135/22)
                            Communities
                           (Case T-13/00)                                                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                          (2000/C 135/21)                                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 19 January 2000 by CAV Ulestra-
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                          ten-Schimmert-Hulsberg and Others, established in Ulestraten
                                                                          (Netherlands), represented by G. van der Wal, of the Brussels
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                 Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                Chambers of A. May, 31 Grand-Rue.
European Communities on 19 January 2000 by S.W.M. Bal-
tussen and Others, established in Amsterdam (Netherlands),
represented by G. van der Wal, of the Brussels Bar, with an               The applicants claim that the Court should:
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of A. May,
31 Grand-Rue.                                                             (1) Declare the action to be admissible;
 ---pagebreak--- C 135/12              EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                       13.5.2000
(2) Annul the Commission’s decision [C(1999) 2539 final] (1)                  service stations along the border with Germany) are to be
    of 20 July 1999 or annul Articles 2 and 3 of the decision                 treated as constituting unlawful State aid within the
    in so far as they provide, with reference to (one of) the                 meaning of Article 87(1) EC and/or must be repaid by the
    applicants, that any amounts received by the applicant(s)                 applicant(s), and/or in so far as it follows from that decision
    pursuant to the temporary arrangements (subsidies for                     that any amounts which may or must be paid to the
    service stations along the border with Germany) are to be                 applicant(s) pursuant to the temporary arrangements are
    treated as constituting unlawful State aid within the                     correctly classified as constituting unlawful aid for the
    meaning of Article 87(1) EC and/or must be repaid by the                  purposes of Article 87(1) EC;
    applicant(s), and/or in so far as it follows from that decision
    that any amounts which may or must be paid to the                     (3) Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
    applicant(s) pursuant to the temporary arrangements are
    correctly classified as constituting unlawful aid for the
    purposes of Article 87(1) EC;
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
(3) Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
                                                                          The pleas in law and the main arguments are similar to those
                                                                          in Case T-318/99.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and the main arguments are similar to those              (1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
in Case T-318/99.
(1) OJ L 280 of 30.10.1999, p. 87.
                                                                          Action brought on 20 January 2000 by Jean Demaeght,
                                                                          Théo Lippert, Ulrike Sinter, John Hambly and Kirsten
                                                                          Lammar against the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                                                    Communities
Action brought on 19 January 2000 by Auto- en Carosse-
riebedrijf Ambting B.V. and Others against the Com-
            mission of the European Communities                                                    (Case T-19/00)
                         (Case T-15/00)                                                           (2000/C 135/24)
                        (2000/C 135/23)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: French)
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 20 January 2000 by Jean De-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          maeght, residing in Luxembourg, Théo Lippert, residing in
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          Luxembourg, Ulrike Sinter, residing in Luxembourg, John
European Communities on 19 January 2000 by Auto- en
                                                                          Hambly, residing at Bembridge (United Kingdom) and Kirsten
Carosseriebedrijf Ambting B.V. and Others, established in
                                                                          Lammar, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Jean-Noël
Arnhem (Netherlands), represented by G. van der Wal, of the
                                                                          Louis, Greta-Françoise Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                          Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of A. May, 31 Grand-Rue.
                                                                          offices of Société de Gestion Fiduciaire, 2-4 Rue Beck.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
                                                                          The applicants claim that the Court should:
(1) Declare the action to be admissible;
                                                                          — annul the decision of the Court of Justice of 18 November
(2) Annul the Commission’s decision [C(1999) 2539           final] (1)        1998 not to take any steps to comply with the judgment
    of 20 July 1999 or annul Articles 2 and 3 of the decision                 of the Court of First Instance of 30 September 1998 in
    in so far as they provide, with reference to (one of) the                 Case T-154/96;
    applicants, that any amounts received by the applicant(s)
    pursuant to the temporary arrangements (subsidies for                 — order the defendant to pay the costs.