CELEX: C2004/059/37
Language: en
Date: 2004-03-06 00:00:00
Title: Case T-395/03: Action brought on 10 December 2003 by Sophie van Weyenbergh against the Commission of the European Communities

C 59/22               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          6.3.2004
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Action brought on 2 December 2003 by Yedas Tarim ve                       lack of sufficient financial aid and therefore a disadvantage in
Otomotiv Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. against the Council of                    terms of fair competition with other companies in the field.
the European Union and the Commission of the European
                          Communities
                                                                          (1) Decision No 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Association Council of
                                                                              22 December 1995 on implementing the final phase of the
                                                                              Customs Union (OJ L 35 of 13 February 1996, p. 1).
                        (Case T-367/03)                                   (2) Agreement establishing an Association between the European
                                                                              Economic Community and Turkey (OJ P 217 of 29 December
                                                                              1964, p. 3687) (No English text available).
                         (2004/C 59/36)
                  (Language of the case: English)
                                                                          Action brought on 10 December 2003 by Sophie van
                                                                          Weyenbergh against the Commission of the European
                                                                                                    Communities
An action against the Council of the European Union and the
Commission of the European Communities was brought                                                (Case T-395/03)
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on 2 December 2003 by Yedas Tarim ve Otomotiv Sanayi ve                                            (2004/C 59/37)
Ticaret A.S., Istanbul, (Turkey), represented by R. Sinner,
lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                                             (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
—     grant compensation to the applicant for the loss incurred           European Communities on 10 December 2003 by Sophie van
      due to the Customs Union procedures generally, which                Weyenbergh, resident in Tervuren (Belgium), represented by
      arose from the Ankara Agreement, the Additional Proto-              Carlos Mourato, lawyer.
      col and its appendices, and especially the Common
      Council Decision No 1/95 of the European Community.                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     annul the decision of the selection board of Competition
                                                                                COM/TB/99 not to include the applicant in the list of
                                                                                suitable candidates;
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum of
                                                                                EUR 72 924,00, subject to modification in the course of
                                                                                the proceedings, in respect of damages for material and
The applicant is a small and medium sized enterprise, active in                 non-material loss;
the automotive industry. The applicant claims to have suffered
a loss caused by the customs union between the European                   —     order the defendant to pay the costs of the case.
Union and Turkey (1), established in 1996. According to the
applicant, the European Union has not fulfilled all of its
obligations arising from the customs union and the Ankara                 Pleas in law and main arguments
Agreement (2).
                                                                          Following the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                          13 March 2002 in Joined Cases T-357/00, T-361/00, T-363/
The applicant claims that Turkey would be given loans and                 00 and T-364/00 (1) annulling the decision of the selection
donations from the Community’s program for Mediterranean                  board to reject the applicant’s candidature for internal Compe-
countries and from the European Union’s budget resources in               tition COM/TB/99 for the constitution of a reserve list of
order to eliminate the negative effects of the customs union              administrative assistants in career bracket B4/B5, the applicant
on Turkey’s economy. According to the applicant, the assist-              was called to a new oral test. She objects to the failure to
ance given was inadequate. The applicant, as a small and                  include her name on the list of suitable candidates in this
medium company, claims to have suffered losses due to the                 competition.
 ---pagebreak--- 6.3.2004               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 59/23
In this regard, she points out that the letter by which she was           Pleas in law and main arguments
notified of the contested decision bears the date of 20 January
2003, that is to say three days before the date on which the
oral test in question actually took place. That error was later           The applicant was an official of the European Parliament when
corrected.                                                                he was transferred to OHIM on 1st October 1998. By the
                                                                          contested decision, OHIM informed the applicant of his
                                                                          number of merit points for the 2002 promotion year. When
In support of her claims, the applicant pleads:                           calculating those points, OHIM limited the applicant’s length
                                                                          of service in the grade to five years and as a result did not take
—     breach of the notice of the competition in question and a           account of the period from 1 January 1991 to 31 October
      defect in the procedure, in that the selection board could          1993.
      not evaluate her on her oral abilities until it had
      interviewed her;
                                                                          In support of his claim for annulment, the applicant submits,
                                                                          firstly, that there was a breach of Article 1 of Decision ADM
—     misuse of powers given that the selection board was                 02-39 rev of OHIM concerning the career and promotion of
      biased;                                                             officials and temporary staff, and of the principles of legality,
                                                                          legal certainty and equal treatment. He submits, furthermore,
—     breach of the principle of equal treatment; and                     that that there was a breach of the Staff Regulations in so far
                                                                          as the principles applicable to transfers between institutions
—     breach of the requirement to state grounds for a decision.          were not adhered to and that the applicant’s legitimate
                                                                          expectations when he accepted the transfer were not upheld.
                                                                          The applicant submits, finally, that there was a breach of the
(1) [2002] ECR-SC I-A-37, II-161.                                         requirement to state the reasons for the disputed decision and
                                                                          of the principle of proportionality.
Action brought on 11 December 2003 by Manuel Simões                       Action brought on 18 December 2003 by Hoechst AG
dos Santos against the Office for Harmonisation in the                      against the Commission of the European Communities
                         Internal Market
                                                                                                   (Case T-410/03)
                        (Case T-409/03)
                                                                                                    (2004/C 59/39)
                          (2004/C 59/38)
                                                                                             (Language of the case: German)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal            ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance              Communities on 18 December 2003 by Hoechst AG, Frankfurt
of the European Communities on 11 December 2003 by                        am Main (Germany), represented by M. Klusmann and V. Turn-
Manuel Simões dos Santos, resident in Alicante (Spain),                   er, lawyers.
represented by Antonio Creus Carreras, lawyer.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —      annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns the
—     annul the implied decision of the Appointing Authority                     applicant;
      rejecting the complaint made by the applicant and the
      decision of 14 February 2003 fixing his initial number of           —      in the alternative, make an appropriate reduction in the
      merit points for the 2002 promotion year in so far as it                   amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in the
      limits his period of service in the European Parliament;                   contested decision;
—     order the defendant to pay all the costs of the case.               —      order the defendant to pay the costs.