CELEX: C2001/186/17
Language: en
Date: 2001-06-30 00:00:00
Title: Case T-81/01: Action brought on 5 April 2001 by M.O.H. Verdoodt and I.E.M. Rademakers-Verdoodt against the Commission of the European Communities

30.6.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 186/11
The applicant alleges, inter alia, that the principle of equal           applicants submitted to the Commission on 20 October 2000
treatment was infringed in her oral test. That test, which was           that the gypsum tanker Arizona be exempted from application
conducted in German as ‘Language 1’, was not attended by a               of the ‘old-for-new obligations’ laid down in Article 4(1) of
member of the selection board with German as mother tongue,              Regulation No 718/1999. In the contested decision, the
while other candidates had examiners whose mother tongue                 Commission decided not to grant the requested exemption, a
was their ‘Language 1’. The applicant contends that she was              decision which has a direct adverse effect on the applicants’
not always understood correctly during the test. By reason of            interests.
that infringement of the principle of equal treatment the
selection board failed to observe the rules governing its work,
and it was not ensured in accordance with Article 27 of the
Staff Regulations that the defendant secured the services of             The vessel Arizona is a gypsum tanker which transports
officials of the highest standard of ability.                            calcined gypsum. In the contested decision, the Commission
                                                                         takes the view, by reference to the conditions laid down in
                                                                         Article 4(6) of the regulation, that if those conditions are
                                                                         satisfied, the vessel does not contribute to an increase in fleet
                                                                         capacity and thus does not adversely affect the objectives of
                                                                         the Community rules. The Commission states that, while
                                                                         consulting the expert group ‘capacity policy and promotion of
                                                                         Community inland waterway transport’, it learned that, as a
                                                                         gypsum tanker, the vessel carries out transport operations in
                                                                         the same way as other vessels on the market which also
                                                                         transport gypsum but which have not benefited from exemp-
Action brought on 5 April 2001 by M.O.H. Verdoodt and                    tion from the ‘old-for-new’ rule.
I.E.M. Rademakers-Verdoodt against the Commission of
                  the European Communities
                                                                         According to the applicants, however, the consignments for
                          (Case T-81/01)                                 transport by the Arizona are not ’gypsum’ but rather calcined
                                                                         gypsum. Previously, calcined gypsum was transported solely
                                                                         by lorry: apart from the Arizona, there is no vessel which can
                         (2001/C 186/17)                                 and may transport calcined gypsum. The gypsum which other
                                                                         vessels transport is therefore a different type of cargo to the
                                                                         calcined gypsum which the Arizona transports. Other vessels
                                                                         transport loose or rough gypsum. Moreover, the market for
                    (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                         vessels which transport ‘gypsum’ is different to that for the
                                                                         transport of calcined gypsum. The market for the transpor-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                tation of calcined gypsum consists of lorry transport and, since
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               the construction of the Arizona, of transport by the Arizona,
European Communities on 5 April 2001 by M.O.H. Verdoodt                  which thus, each year, moves the equivalent of some 2 400 lor-
and I.E.M. Rademakers-Verdoodt, both resident in Schoten                 ries. The Arizona is technically unsuitable for the transportation
(Belgium), represented by J. van Dam, of the Rotterdam Bar.              of other goods. The European Commission’s view that, follow-
                                                                         ing minor modifications, the Arizona could transport any type
                                                                         of goods is clearly attributable to erroneous information.
The applicants claim that the Court should:
(1) Annul Commission Decision SG (2001) D/286098 of
      9 February 2001 not to grant the applicants the requested          The Commission errs in its conclusion that granting the
      exemption from the old-for-new obligations set out in              Arizona exemption from the old-for-new rule would result in
      Article 4(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 of             a distortion of competition. On the contrary, ‘fair and honest
      29 March 1999 on a Community-fleet capacity policy to              treatment of all market players’ means that the Arizona, as
      promote inland waterway transport, and rule that the               a specialised vessel satisfying the classification criteria of
      requested exemption ought to be granted in respect of              Article 4(6) of Regulation No 718/1999, ought to be exempted
      the Arizona;                                                       from the old-for-new obligations.
(2) Order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                         The applicants offer to substantiate their views by all legal
                                                                         means, in particular by way of witnesses and experts.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants challenge Commission Decision SG (2001)
D/286098 of 9 February 2001, which is addressed to them.
That decision was issued in response to the request which the